I transitioned in 1983 and the so called care of Charing Cross hospital. I was a feminine gay boy from Ireland. Sexually abused aged 8 by a neighbour boy . When it became apparent that I was gay I was relentlessly bullied by Irish society, I was still a kid but a sexual outlaw as far as society was concerned. Part of a very neglectful dysfunctional family, my mum died when I was 11 my father emotionally damaged and distant . When I found out I could transition into a woman and be redeemed from being called filthy names I was totally elated. I lived as a woman for eight years ( 83 to 91 ) I was just about to have surgery in Charing X hospital when thank god I realised I could be making the biggest mistake of my life. Gradually I de transitioned and lived as a gay man ever since. I thank God every day I didn’t go through with surgery. The doctor I was under in Charing X at the time was unconcerned about me or my life, it was his career and reputation that he cared about. He was eventually told to resign because so many people had surgery under his “ care” and regretted it . Thank goodness I had the courage to reject surgery.
It's funny that everyone called you filthy names when being gay but not so when you donned a dress as a male. I started seeking medical care in the early 90's and it was not easy. There was no social network and you'd better want to be a full woman and you'd better pass. I wanted to control my secondary sex characteristics yet had no problem presenting as male. I kept getting denied and had to burn through several psychologists while keeping my weight 10% below normal to control those androgens which governed the sex characteristics. Twenty years later in 2011, I finally got the estrogen and orchiectomy and am happy presenting as a more youthful male. Stella here wants you to campaign against transgender medicine but the conservatives are coming for the gays after they finish with us. Either way you are damaged goods to them and will be regarded as a sex offender for engaging in these two communities.
Julie Bindel's clarity, intellectual rigour, humanity and humour help me to parse the the BS from the complex reality. Julie is a hero(ine). Thank you Julie for your courage.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
Julie Bindle is hands down the most compassionate, knowledgable, intelligent, honest person who has so much personal integrity. I love listening to her. I’ve seen her speak a number of times and love her direct and accountable approach to the work she does. Great show today…….🙏🙏🙏🙏
I really respect that Julie always holds the most vulnerable, the voiceless, at the centre of her research. The real nitty gritty, not just the surface level information. These are the people who will be / are suffering most with the current gender orthodoxy and she is able to really clearly explain why. Brilliant woman. I could listen to her all day!
Ironically, those on the other side of the debate fervently believe (or are afraid to admit otherwise) that they hold “the most vulnerable, the voiceless, at the centre” of… absolutely everything. It’s pretty easy to discern who is thinking this through and forming options based upon first principles from the ideologically possessed mouthpieces.
@@stvbrsn Exactly! I'll bet everything that absolutely none of those people have ever spent time with families like the ones Julie has. It's all dinner party stuff.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Julie always says that neo liberal / pop/ choice feminists prioritise breaking the glass ceiling, whereas Julie prioritises liberating the women in the “basement”!
The genuine pain on the faces of Stella and Sasha as they listen to Julie was overwhelming. Thank you all three of you for a very powerful, painful and necessary podcast. Julie is fascinating and a marvel.
Wow! I've listened to quite a few interviews of Julie Bindel and this is the best by far! I never knew just how nuanced she is. The perspective she has! And also, she isn't afraid to point out how she has been wrong, and also the reasons for it. A remarkable person.
Perspective? I suppose, at least according to the belief that feminism is incontrovertibly RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, which is TRUE according to 'Feminist Epistemology', which convincingly argues: “SHUT UP! FEMINISM IS, LIKE, SO TOTALLY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! why? BECAUSE WE HAVE A SUPERIOR 'WAY OF KNOWING'! ONLY NON-FEMINISTS ARE BEHOLDEN TO 'OUT-DATED' PATRIARCHAL STANDARDS OF EMPIRICISM, LOGIC, AND REASON!"
Crying... Fighting bs Trans. Far from chucking my child out. She lives with me. We share much love despite her still identifying as Trans bloke. 6 years on... at 21, she has no hormones or surgery. I have fought and argued with so many teachers, counsellors etc. Every step heartbreaking. So alone.
There are groups of parents out there offering support. Sorry I don't know any of the links but I believe Mumsnet has many women in a similar position to yourself
I hope your daughter never chooses to harm her body. I'm a lesbian and my wife and I often talk about the fact that we're loosing great butch lesbians to this nonsensical trans bs. I hope she finds a way to feel good in her own body and enjoy it.
Julie Bindel! My hero! I hope she is recognised for all the work she has done and is doing for women. I hope she is remembered for the key role she played in standing up to trans identified males which in turn kept girls and women safe. I hope she isn't erased from history like so many lesbians are. I hope she goes down in history.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Massive respect for Julie I always learn something or gain a different perspective after listening to her. Very inspiring and makes me want to do more to protect our girls ❤
Julie is amazing. I try to be aware of actual, on the ground , women’s issues and the law and policies etc. Yet, she illustrates and informs and really makes me (re)think . Amazing informed perspective. Amazing woman.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
I've at episode 4.. I have to take brakes but I really like Julies new podcas. I've felt sorry for most parents dealing with these issues but when Julie told a father it's not his fault for not knowing and pointing out how much pressure he was under I started crying ❤ TY for telling him that Julie ❤ Looking forward to your interview 😊
great interview - really nice to have firm clarity on her views on innate sexuality and 'political lesbianism' - no one can be bothered to actually listen to her, so i have been confused by those claiming she has views she doesn't!
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
@@raincadeify seemingly against it (as she says in the interview here) but she sounds like she has more tolerance for women who says they're PL than I would!! However many people seem to think Julie herself is a straight woman who claims to be a political lesbian. Which I don't get. Beyond her saying that she is a lesbian who is political and seeming to not care much about the confusion haha.
What I love about her the most, its her ability to be critical about herselve and actually being able to admit she has been wrong in the past, own up to it and addapt. Remarkable.
I really liked the how honest and transparent Julie was. Being able to admit she was wrong, that is so rare in our culture. I am a 52 yo gay man, and I related to some things she was saying. The whole born this way thing. It's like Thethe chicken and egg problem. Am I gay because of a distant father and "smother dearest". It kind of fits my story. Or is it my inherent gayness that pushed my father away? I mostly date black men, that is my preference. I am a white Eastern European. Almost all of them revealed to me some history of sexual abuse by a relative or a neighbor.
If you decide gayness comes from growing up in a dysfunctional home or from some kind of gender confusion, then you are pathologizing all gays universally. It's an inherently unhealthy framing for a normal, healthy variation of sexuality. I don't see that.
You are saying being gay is likely the outgrowth of sexual abuse. Is societal acceptance by endorsing gay marriage and not being arrested for consensual gay relations between adults just perpetuating this cycle? Criminalization of homosexuality is the case you are making and in Texas, they are ready to prosecute and to the tune of 20 years imprisonment with hard labor. I think almost anyone can cite issues with parents. Furthermore the egg comes about in other organisms and then as species change, the egg was their before the species. This just shows your inability to critically think. The problem I have with you is that anti-gay politicians will use your arguments like they did those of Chloe Cole and curtail rights. Maybe you want to be in prison or have had a terrible time with gay relations. You are not putting your best foot forward and if you are harboring abuse issues, I suggest you not bring them into current and new relationships.
@@DorianPaige00 Thank you for taking the time to respond so cogently to that silly comment. I'm 67 yo and am appalled to see this regressive idea popping up, especially coming from a gay man. It's like we're in Anita Bryant's America again.
@@raincadeify This is much worse because they are organized and now have the networks to do damage like Fox, Qanon, X, and other smaller ones. The internet brings like minded people together and can unify factions to launch attacks under a focused strategy that's been prove effective in the past. The folks in the video are somewhat centrist but everything LGBT is being put under strict scrutiny and being interpreted for a certain political gain. When Hilary Cass said I didn't mean all minors need to be taken off their medical regimens, that was Cass clarifying her words. Yet others interpret it different in a swoop to ban care, label it child abuse, and head toward dismantling adult gender medicine, birth control, vaccines, and SSRI's with the same arguments.
@@DorianPaige00 What a load of hogwash, Texas is not going to recriminalize homosexuality, nobody’s even proposing that. Whose rights to do what were “curtailed” because Chloe Cole spoke up about her abuse by medical professionals ? Sounds like blaming the victim to me
Excellent show. Glad she talked about Lesbianism and us Lesbians and even those Lesbianns who decide to transition and end up attracted to men while taking testosterone. Here's my take having seen this phenomenon in San Francisco around a certain generation of transitioners: all that worship of maleness and their newly masculinized bodies, feelings and emotions and increased sex drives: bisexual men would be only too willing to accomodate and male identified Butch on Butch couples, once one trans begin to identify far more heavily with gay men and their casual sexuality, than with other Lesbians. Often once one transitioned, the other was not far behind. And essentially bisexual men would all too willingly take advantage of this. And they would end up once they " passed" being far more accepted in certain circles of gay male culture, having left us Lesbians behind. Some would identify themselves as " queer" and date both men and queer" women which was terribly dangerous for us Lesbians, the lowest risk group, whereas gay/ bi men ESPECIALLY in SF were the highest risk group for AIDS and other STDS. It was decades after us Lesbians been infiltrated by TIMS/ MTFs that true Gay Men began noticing this infiltration by FTMs that they then began objecting to Females crashing their sacrosanct gay male spaces.... Really good interview overall.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Thank you so much for your work on this difficult topic. I was surprised though when Julie said there are no working class doctors. There are, I and many of my colleagues come from working class families. We went to medical school in the 1980's and did so with no tuition fees and a grant for living expenses. I think it is very different now and that is not good for the profession, the NHS or most importantly our patients.
Once you become a doctor, you're not working class, you've got a tremendous amount of privilege. And everyone is constantly reminded of it by that title "Dr" ever in front of your name. (Which was fought for by the medical profession in order to reinforce that privilege... read up on the history sometime.) Not that having a working class background doesn't start you off in a very different status than somone better off. But it's remarkable how much people's attitudes change once they've settled into a more privileged position and lifestyle. Half the family conflicts I know of have to do with the adult class differences between siblings who grew up in the same house!
Love Sasha and Stella. The podcast series Julie in Genderland sounds worth a listen . I believe there is a huge majority of people who know that the trans trend is harmful and wrong but who are being pushed one way or another to not publicly speaking out about it as people are being blasted as transphobic for anything they say which does not immediately affirm everyone without question. Some people, a very small minority may be better off living as trans. That is different from the "craze" and "trend" that is going around at the moment. Overall the potential and real health issues of pumping opposite sex hormones into your body should be enough for anyone sane to think 1000 times and eliminate any other solutions before going down that road. If at the end of the day it is best for your condition then so be it but the majority of people transitiioning it is not helpful for.
From 1962 too- (Scandinavian)feminist Got a bit Clever along the Way..🤔😄 but not lesbian; so still a feminist under ongoing reconstruction- Getting pregnant helped a lot 😂.. Its the deep dive we still need- AND as long we cant have an open minded debate about the Woman constitution; Were not there.. !! Thanks to all of you 🙏🏼🙏🏼
women changing sexuality based on T levels confirms what we already know about birth control. Women report similar results when coming off BC - usually changing what type of man they're attracted to, but sometimes even jumping from homosexual to heterosexual or vise versa!
Julie, alongside Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce and a myriad of others, are heroines - I'd say Buck Angel too but dude...😉! You two are pretty well up there too!
Julie Bindel is a true feminist--committed to women's rights, committed to researching and investigating reality in order to better secure women's rights, and because of this commitment, she is readily prepared to admit to mistakes and change her mind. Her cause, women's rights, is more important to her than her thoughts, her career, her identity, her trajectory. But the gene thing... There's no tallness gene, either, no single gene that determines a person's height, but tallness has an uncontested strong genetic/biological component. Genes and biological traits operate in very complicated and complex ways, and certain parts of thousands of genes are involved in the generation (note the etymology) of a so-called complex trait. The inexistence of a gay gene doesn't mean that there are no genetic/biological/innate factors in same-sex attraction. There very well might be, and same-sex attraction might also be multi-factorial, and for some people the genetic combination that encourages/determines/encodes same-sex attraction might differ from the genetic combination that encourages/determines/encodes others' same-sex attraction, because certain "environmental" triggers did or didn't happen. And environmental, in biology, includes the uterus, hormones, etc. It's not just " society". Nature versus nurture, "a gay gene", these simplifying and simplistic notions of how human biology and human behavior relate aren't helpful and they aren't science -based.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
That seems to argue that it IS science based ie they have found no proof of this YET although it may be found sometime in the future. Scientists rarely say something is impossible to ever happen but they do say they have seen no scientific evidence that such and such exists.
So pleased to see Julie Bindel on the show. I used to loathe Julie -- I think because I disagreed with her on the issue of the legal status of sex work. I do not and have never been involved with paid sex. But I do have friends who are sex workers (not the pampered 'escorts' who are mostly legal anyway, but streetwalkers who face legal consequences on a regular basis) and it seems ridiculous to me that they should be criminalized for how they 'choose' to earn a living.(My main remainining disagreement with Julie is about the extent to which this is a free choice.) That said, I agree with all of her other arguments re. sex work and I'm much more sceptical of the position I used to hold today. Those industrial scale brothels in Germany really do seem like a 1950 sci-fi writer's depiction of hell on earth. Over the last four or five years though, I've been paying closer attention to her work and the woman really is a national treasure. She's funny, clever, rational, doesn't take herself too seriously -- and she's on the right side of history. Often, we think that there's no point in arguing on the internet -- everyone is just stuck in their echo chamber and nobody ever listens to people they disagree with or changes their mind. Julie Bindel has changed my mind about all manner of stuff. Really looking forward to the show.
She wants the punters criminalised, not the women. Dont know where you got that idea from? But yes she is a great character, big hearted resolute and honourable. And she knows how to enjoy herself, a humouros epicurean. She is also really charismatic with the sparkliest blue eyes.
You can do what you like as an adult but this is about safeguarding children and young people from dangerous ideologies and irreversible medical interventions that destroy their bodies. We will not be silenced by you.
Adore her! Her Substack is just brilliant. Avid reader. I do disagree about there being a kind of genetic tie to homosexuality, however. There being examples of homosexual *behaviour* (keyword) lend what I feel is a very valid reason to consider the existence of a universal gene amongst living species on the planet. However, I do agree that it doesn't matter if there is one!
I greatly appreciate Julie's frank conversation on the gay gene premise. Yes there are terrible conversion therapy organizations. Then there are programs that are very similar to support recovery from addiction. I make this comparison because I have participated in all three. I believe human sexuality is a basic instinct. How I engage that instinct is my choice.
My ex-husband was a doctor (hospital Consultant, with publications and zillions of degrees). His father was a railway signalman who left school at age 14. (This was quite a long time ago.)
Julie Bindel is such an amazing voice for the intersections with class in all of this! That piece is pretty much always left out by 'woke' & transactivists - probably because what a class-based analysis shows isn't compatible with gender-ideol*gy narratives or the so-called liberal- or 'choice-feminism'...
Having attended a Kelly Jay Keen rally I thought the women in the TRA "cheer squad" actually had difficulty moving into adulthood. I seriously suspect there's a lot of mummy and daddy "issues" going on there.
I’m older than Julie but she’s spot on about the 1970’s where we were convinced there was nothing women couldn’t do, unlike men who could never bring life into the world. In a sense it was true if we lived in a women’s world but we didn’t, everything was geared around men, who also had 20 times stronger upper body strength etc. We failed to take in the powerful urge to have children, nurture them, raise them, that hits you like a thunderbolt, or the fact pregnancy can be dangerous as well as debilitating. Nature has a way of making us be more like our mothers than we care to admit.
You know, I've never felt the thunderbolt urge but i am with you on men's upper body strength. We can learn engineering right alongside men nut when it comes to brute strength... yea, no comparison.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
@@zimzob Yeah, but think of the importance of weight divisions in boxing/mma etc. Ms Bindell would be a women's heavyweight, that's a man's middleweight. She could thump a vegan male cyclist probably.
Absolutely great discussion. My comment is for the very end of the podcast when ya'll were talking about doctors. I'm from NJ and I have less then zero trust in doctors anymore due to 1) the covid lies and forced vaccinations (I managed to avoid the poison) and 2) all this trans cr@p. My gyno asks what my gender is and my sexual preference as part of "required" paperwork. Seriously?? You can't tell by looking that I have a vjina. And my former GP was always pushing vaccines and treating me like a 2nd class citizen because I won't take anymore ever again. No flu shots, pneumonia, dtap,covid,shingles or any other BS they try to push on me. Exercise, moderation, and supplementation is my motto. I'm 60 years old and my only med is Bioidentical hormones. Unless I'm dying, I have zero plans to visit a doctor. All of the professional organizations pushing child mutilation and forcing upwards of 72 vaccinations by the time your 18 have proven to me that doctors can no longer be trusted. I realize there are good ones out there but they're very to find these days. I'll take my chanced.
The grooming gangs are still operating across the UK, not just "northern town". Wherever there used to be a car manufacturing plant you'll find large Muslim migrant populations - Luton, Oxford, Bristol.
Nobody asked for my opinion, so here it is! Babies aren’t born gay or straight. Children are not in the wrong body. Nobody is born trans. You know what children are? Children are potential. And the potentialities emerge gradually over time (and shift and oscillate) as the child develops and matures. Thats right folks, it’s both nature *and* nurture, interdependent and intertwined. This, combined with choices made by the child and parents, is what “determines” what the child will become. Normally, I like to keep open the epistemic humility to think my mind could be changed, but not here. This is something I’ve been thinking about for decades.
What you are maintaining opens up a can of worms for those attempting to overcome Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. People who suffer daily from abuse and neglect through their childhood cling to the hope the maladapted responses to clung to to survive childhood can be modified. Through conscious effort they can change unconscious desires and patterns. Your comment's stance, overlapped with the gay conversion idea suggests an entirely malleable persona. If trauma response can be "fixed" so can gay.
There's a higher incidence in the younger sons in large families. But untangling epigenetic factors from social conditioning is very difficult. I suppose studying identical twins might put the argument to bed ?
For what it's worth, I think it's plain male and female sexuality have real differences; further, I think men's sexuality is actually more "rigid", and channels in specific ways that women's doesn't, quite possibly for genetic reasons.
I love Julie but she’s wrong when she says there are no working class doctors. I work in a surgery (clinical pharmacist) and two of our GPs are from local council estates. My niece is studying medicine and me and her mum (my sister) were also brought up on a council estate. It’s true that most are not from humble beginnings but to say none are isn’t correct.
They would be the first doctors I have ever heard of who are. I think they are an anomaly. I have been chronically ill for 13 years and have seen so many doctors and clinicians I can't count. Not one of them was working class, not a single one.
@@souxcasa I guess it depends what you mean by working class. If you’re born on a council estate, then get a place at med school, what are you when qualified? Personally I don’t like the word class. Does it go on your accent? Money? Job? Parents jobs? Where you were born? Is it where you start or where you finish?
I wish Julie blindel’s feud with Kellie Jay Keen would end. I KJK really platforms women so well, she was really the first and best at this. I like both Julie and Kellie, but as an apolitical person the very lefty ‘patriachy’ etc a bit tiresome. That letter to her after the riots was a bit (excuse the pun) left field, was it about Islamophobia (?) I dont know I have heard a lot of ex Muslim women guilt of that crime. I am perpetually confused these days.
I'm afraid Julie has some very close minded attitudes to politics. Kelly Jay was 'rusted on' Labour until she saw how the state-provided services (ostensibly driven by left wing sentiment) were dismantling women's ability to organise a family around them. I think being a lesbian has distanced Julie from the caustic nature of Wokeism upon the nuclear/extended family.
They are both great warriors for women & if joined would be a formidable team. I have a few theories why that won't happen though. 1) Both wanting the Queen Bee spot or is it that both are kinda lone wolfs so not good at teamwork ? I love KJK but I think she would be difficult to work with - her way or the highway. 2) From photos I have seen JB seems to be best buddies with a group of academic lefty elite feminists, therefore it is my opinion she traded freedom for friendship. She prevaricated on lots of transgender issues to come across as a 'civilised' feminist. Some of her friends truly have the knife out for KJ. 3) Also as she admitted, JB believed that biology made no difference and imo in some ways that birthed all this. I don't blame those older feminists for that, it's just that when they were fighting for women's rights in one way eg work rights etc, they were undermining women in another way - our biology.
@@yesnomaybeso3220 Kellie-Jay doesn't need to join forces with anyone because she's brilliant on her own. I couldn't admire her more after seeing the way she handled being attacked a second time yesterday. If those older feminists believed biology didn't make a difference, then they couldn't have been fighting for women's rights.
I listened to Julie on another podcast, and understand her arguments about being a lesbian better now. I thought she'd said that women capable of being attracted to men could be lesbians, but I know now that's not what she meant. I agree with her about "gold star". Many women, for many reasons, have gone through the motions of sleeping with men without feeling a significant attraction to them. However, her arguments against saying that we're born lesbian don't make sense to me. We're all born capable of some degree of physical violence, for example, but since when is that considered an excuse to be violent? Because a man might try to excuse a rape by claiming it's his nature (and it might be) means that we must never think that we are, from conception, destined to be attracted to other women? We can't have something (possibly being born lesbian, which I hope turns out to be true) because MEN might say the same thing about some aspect of themselves? We're supposed to give them the power to change how we might define ourselves?
Women used to work down mines - even when pregnant - and in fields (read what some of the Land Girls have said about their experience of working on the land in World War Ii, or the LumberJills' accounts), and in factoies and mills during the Industrial Revolution.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Women collude in their own oppression!! (Eve Sedgwick has said it before, but not in the trans context. I have been thinking the same thing and now I need to read your book! Thank you! 🙏
Don't blame this on women. These are a few women supporting this. Most women do not but they keep getting ignored and drowned out by activists who have taken over companies, sports bodies etc.
Another thing youre wrong about is your demonisation of social workers. Sasha and stella should know that affirmative approach is pushed onto social care staff the same way it is on therapists
Julie might find the newer genetic studies into development & what influences gestational development very interesting. The influences of natural proteins & chemical exposure in suppressing certain genes. Environmental factors, not just physical but their social impact on mothers & their hormones on developing embryos. Nutrition, stress, population demographics, war, etc. Our different preferences may possibly be something evolutionary, adaptations required in our primitive stages when we lived in groups or had pressures like access to food or exposure to cold/heat etc.
Thanks for this interview. I certainly don’t agree with all Julie’s views but I always very much enjoy listening to her speak, and often learn new things. She is one of the feminists that I respect because she doesn’t seem to buy into liberal, middle class, self-entitled, self-indulgent feminist perspective's. One place where Julie is spot on imo (and different from many other feminists), is where she talks about (56:00 mins onwards) how people (men and women) can be both victims and perpetrators. I have previously made some ‘feminists’ angry by making just this point, but there are plenty of obvious examples illustrating the phenomenon. For example, women (mothers, grandmothers etc) who are central to the continuation of FGM, or in historic China, foot binding. Yes men are involved but so are women - unsurprisingly, both men and women within a culture can, and often do, buy into the same cultural norms and practices. In that sense, both men AND women help maintain ‘patriarchy’. I’ve never liked the term ‘empowerment’ - it’s a BS term suggesting an underlying victimhood framing, based upon a false narrative of oppression of women who already, and ironically, as evidenced by their own successes in life, undermine the notion of ‘patriarchy’ and victimhood - at least for women like themselves. In a country like the UK, life chances for men AND women are mostly based upon privileges of birth (the environment, intelligence and psychology that everyone through luck, or bad luck, are born into) and not so much biological sex. One point: I didn’t really understand why there were so many mentions of there not being a gene for homosexuality: the critical and highly plausible scientific point is that many genes could be working together, along with other aspects of biology and the environment. The critical ethical point is that whether homosexuality has any genetic component or not, and whether it’s a ‘choice’ or not, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
In 2013 TR had a BBC documentary.. Quitting the English defence league. When Tommy met Mo. In that grooming gangs were discussed. A woman MP related how she had been unable to get action taken
I'd be interested to hear Julie's take on Simone De Beauvoir's 1949 book "The Second Sex" and its role in separating sex from gender. Without the idea that society creates a role and compels women to perform that role, would there be such a thing as "gender" in the sense the trans lobby characterises it today? Or is the resentment toward societal strictures inevitably going to mean some people will be more happy adopting the man role instead of the woman role, and does that necessarily mean they desire total immersion in the "gender" role they are happiest living? It would seem that "The Second Sex" is perhaps as prescriptive and seemingly coersive as the conservative societal model in maintaining that femaleness is an either or question. I think speaking a more "gendered" language where particular pronouns go with particular nouns might make applying the "wrong" pronoun to a noun a political statement, but in English that act doesn't really work - hence the need to invent Ms. I wonder if the French idea of gender and the English idea are not two separate ideas that have created the possibility for creating Peter Pan's "Never never" land on earth as it is in heaven? Has feminism spawned trans ideology by inventing a polar gender identity?
Not only is gender identity false, all identity is false. To identify as anything, all you're saying is "I relate to this dimension but I don't relate to this other dimension" but they're all you in potentiality, and that is relevant because until that's clear, you'll always be seeing enemies where there are none. No one is a lesbian, or trans, or a man or a woman even. They are convenient labels but they are not what you or anyone else actually is. Without taking ownership of anything, the psychological forces playing out in your experience can be seen for what they are. The unresolved trauma becomes apparent, the anger against groups (which you only imagine to exist) become apparent, as does the fear, sadness, etc. You see that everyone has always been innocent, including yourself of course, and the harm that you and others have unwittingly done in the name of projecting identities where there are none becomes more obvious. More than anything, people need to know that they're innocent, that all their feelings are valid, and that their enemies are the same as them. Then they can heal the world. Until they do, they just provide more work to those who are already doing so.
I’m pretty fascinated by biology and the origin of sexual orientation and it always surprises me how many lgb people think that the answer is one single gay gene OR socialization. no other possibilities. especially because the scientific consensus right now is that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interaction of multiple biological factors (some genes, hormones, and other prenatal environmental factors) and the evidence for social factors influencing it is very weak. maybe other gay people just arent as interested in the question and havent kept up? and i also dont understand how “born this way” contradicts the phenomenon of people repressing or denying who they are until later in life. i do wonder if there is a generational gap in how people talk about attraction that also makes these conversations confusing.
I love your comment. I think for some reason the TQ movement has been trying to run away as much as it can from scientific basis, because that requires some level of analytic and intellectual honesty. They don't believe in discussing origins or causes (and even that these might not exist, remember this is a faith based movement) but rather in emphasizing the mental power of the individual to be whatever they say they are. There was a trans woman on a tiktok I once saw who was saying "let's move into that space where we don't have to explain anything about ourselves!". This is obviously exploiting women's empathy, the "be kind", to allow for fetishists to freely run around without ever having to be held accountable for their actions. And the teens being enlisted onto this life philosophy are too innocent to understand they are systemically being deceived and manipulated with this.
@@kateamanak I do think that the left has shied away from biology because of our understandable wariness about its ugly past of scientific racism/sexism, the pathologization of homosexuality and of course eugenics. and perhaps that has enabled the lgbt community to go off the rails with its anti-science attitude. ive even noticed how a lot of feminists are really uncomfortable with the idea that behavioral differences between the sexes arent entirely socialized and may have some biological basis. i would love to see the left place its trust in science again and have faith that nothing we learn about ourselves and our differences will ever justify the removal of human rights for any group.
@@kateamanak I've definitely noticed that the left in general has shied away from biology. it's sort of understandable to a point; scientific racism/sexism and the pathologization of homosexuality have been real issues historically. Obviously this doesn't mean that science is evil or something to be afraid of, though. and I do think that this anxiety around biology probably has contributed to the unscientific nonsense that is queer theory and everything that has come out of it. We shouldn't be afraid of trying to understand our bodies or any of the differences between groups that we might discover. No amount of diversity can justify discrimination or violations of human rights. I think this is what the left needs to understand. Hateful people will always try to use science to justify their hate, but the hate itself is the problem, not the science.
This is the problem with “academics” they interview someone for an hour for a “research paper” and think they know their entire existence. You have no idea. This panel is hilarious
Comp het is always such an interesting topic to me because I personally believed that I was asexual for maybe 5/6 years before even entertaining the idea of being attracted to women. I just thought well I ain't attracted to men so I'm not attracted to anyone 😂
Yes. There IS choice. Nature AND nurture. Unless the mind is fixed but the flesh is not. Let's not get the horse behind the cart in our conceits about what is true and what is desired.
I shall listen. I am female 80yoa no husband no child no fucking kidding. So i wear a foldable fishing-hat with a bunch of interesting stickpins: geographical, museums, cartoon characters.... I just spoke 20 words with tje Feminister former foreign min of Sweden after watching a film about her. She can be ironic, funny and humble in only two short sentences.😃
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming). The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann: “Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.” This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel. Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
I wonder if trans men finding men attractive all of a sudden when on T could have something to do with biological drivers to procreate? Testosterone rises around ovulation to give us the drive to find a man to go and breed with. Perhaps it's that? I'd love to find out.
Hi- I know it is important to work against this happening to children but can you PLEASE include the young 20's group more heavily? Just because these very traumatized kids turn 21 doesn't make their mental health problems go away. Because of their age, people seem to just say, oh well they are an adult- We don't do that with other body issues especially females with eating disorders.
Total respect for Julie Bendel and few problems with how she describes things but as for the genetics. she said they haven't found the gene but that is not the latest science -- so many have taken the 2019 study as definitive even thought it wasn't even dealing with sexual desire but behavior. But there has been a study of Men in China and another looking at men in one of the Nordic countries and they both supported the identification of 2 loci for homosexuality which is not much different than her description but it is suggesting that this point of development is a point that is set in the person's DNA while still in utero. These are both large sample size with significant reliability. So the hay guys may be onto something. Also just listened to the pod cast or at least 3 episodes. Great stuff talk about your gay and lesbian role models and heroes she is one.
Harvard, MIT and the University of Helinski did that study for one. It was the largest study done on sexual orientation. Harvard is an ultra liberal university. Don't you think they would have found it if possible?
@@joandarcfeminist Don't think he broke the story of the rape gangs, think that might have been Maggie Oliver a policewoman? But I do remember T Robinson saying that part of his motivation with his opposition to muslim male culture in Luton, was that his 14 year old cousin was groomed and drugged by a gang of those men.
If Robinson didn't break it, her certainly popularized it when the mainstream media was sitting on it with all the weight of their fat lardy arses. But I thought the story was actually broken by Andrew Norfolk in the Times? Sure, Julie wrote about the gangs and the phenomenon but that didn't seize the popular imagination. It was the fact that social services and police were sitting on it and doing absolutely nothing about it because they feared some backlash from muslim community activists and their handmaidens in politics and the media -- that was the thing that made it a real scandal, and that was the story Andrew Norfolk broke. I seem to recall Julie wanted to underplay the fact that this was a Muslim thing because 'all men are groomers/rapists' so the fact that these gangs were predominantly Pakistani Muslims wasn't something she thought was important or something she cared about? Am I misremembering this?
"Breaking" a story means you still think the legacy media has credibility. In 2000 Adele Weir (later Gladman), a Yorkshire solicitor, was hired by Rotherham Council as a research and development officer on a Home Office Crime Reduction Programme pilot study, "Tackling Prostitution: What Works". Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007. Andrew Norfolk of The Times began reporting what was happening in 2011. Tommy Robinson (b 1982) was raised in Luton and was alarmed at the self segregation of Muslims at his school during the 1990s, to the exclusion of all other races and religions. Tommy is the son of a migrant Irish mother and has many south Asian (Sheikh and Hindu) and West Indian friends from school. Tommy's cousin received harassment and smearing of her reputation at the hands of her Muslim male peers when at school. When the world trade centre attack happened there were jubilant scenes in the streets by the local Muslim community in Tommy's home town. When the gulf war veterans welcome home parade occurred in his home town the soldiers were spat at by jeering mobs of Muslim men with no action taken by the police. Julie has swallowed the lie Tommy Robinson is somehow "Fascist" because she thinks Fascism is somehow opposed to Marxism (her own article of faith). I am currently studying political philosophies of the 20th century following the TIK history channel who is just now exploring the genesis of all the major political movements arising after WW1. Fascism and Marxism are unbelievably close political stablemates. Modern Fascists actually call themselves Socialists! Having heard a lot of his interviews, Tommy Robinson would in my mind qualify as a left of centre Labour voting Classical Liberal in the 1970s. Julie is evidently and culturally a Militant Marxist. Ironically more likely to agree with actual Fascists than Tommy. The Grooming Gangs scandal has revealed 80% of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims (6% of the UK is Muslim - some of them are Pakistani). It is true some Hindu and Seikh girls have fallen prey to these men. It is NOT true Muslim girls have.
In 2013 tr had a documentary... Quitting the English defence league..when Tommy met Mo. In it the gangs were talked about and a woman MP related how she had been unable to get action taken
Wow, what context are you in that "gold star" is misogynistic? Where I come from, it was a recognition that being with men confers privilege (whether you want it or not, whether you realize it or not) and women who have never been with men never had that. A recognition that those of us who pass for many years before coming out, do so because of that privilege, and the homophobia drilled deep within us. And those who didn't pass, withstood those pressures. Not that it makes them "better" than anyone else, but that we might want to honor the bravery. I'm not saying I never heard the phrase slung at someone as a dig. But that was not how we generally used it and not our understanding of its origin. Me, I always ADMIRED someone who faced what I did when young (and worse) yet stayed true to themselves.
Sasha I think Americans are more suspicious of doctors because it's a for-profit model here. You feel like they're trying to sell you things you don't really need - at least I have sometimes.
@@MarinaE-mo2wy don't get me wrong I really like Julie and watch everything she does, but people still pussy-foot around this subject for fear of being called nasty names. I still think she did a bit of pussy footing there.
@@littletree1343 Then how about a serious bit of gratitude to her, eh? She was the first to break the grooming gangs and the first to break Gender ideology - she has fought prostitution and violence against women across the globe. She has spent her whole adult life getting deathreats, and seeing things that would make you or I expire with distress. I am so sick and tired of petty minded commenters who have done nothing, picking at her for apparent transgressions and not giving this Lion of a human her proper due and the fulsome gratitude she deserves.
@@MarinaE-mo2wy I believe my opinion, that she did a bit of pussy footing, does not denigrate her whole career, you need to keep your hair on !! People are allowed their own views, we should all be grateful that we live in a country where all women have autonomy and are free to express our views.
It's funny to me that they're trying to turn the term terf into a slur: Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist. It just says what it is, although people can be trans exclusive or phobic without being a feminist obviously. But in Bindle's case, it fits like glove. As a lesbian about the same age, she is a great disappointment.
terf originated as a slur and that is how it mostly has been used. The meaning being that we created women-only spaces out of transphobic hatred. Which is a reversal of the truth. We created them to care for ourselves, based on our experiences growing up as girls and going through female puberty and so forth. It wasn't about "excluding" TIMs, or men, it just wasn't about them. But some women choose to reclaim the word terf (i get the impression this is particularly true in Britain) whether to subvert it or in a more lighthearted way. The whole idea that "exclusion" is evil is one of the many contradictions, hypocrisies, and gaslighting tactics of trans ideology. Trans ideologues have no problem whatsoever with excluding people, as long as THEY are the ones who get to decide who is excluded.
@@annamyob I have to wonder how old you are, because your summary doesn't match the order of events as I remember seeing them played out. It sounds more like a summary at the end of a telephone game; jumbled up and missing context. I was there in the 70's when lesbian separatism was gaining momentum among academic radical lefty lesbians. As you say, it was a self-affirming, woman-centered movement that had nothing to do with men or with trans people; I don't think you should assume that is what others who don't agree with the present day trans critical crowd (who, are neither feminist nor even lesbian in most cases) to be saying or thinking. That's a strawman. When some went from saying, we want a space that is only for women born women on private property, to publicly insisting that trans women aren't women and therefore should be excluded from bathrooms and medical care and schools, etc, it all took a more sinister turn. When so called "terfs" (I also don't think this is an accurate descriptor) insist on publicly challenging trans women and taking extraordinary efforts to exclude them, by refusing to use preferred pronouns and marginalizing them politically and socially in the same way my queer family was, it becomes very problematic, tone deaf and unself-aware. I'm heartened that most lesbians, women and feminists don't feel this way, but saddened that some others of my tribe, however small, will forever be associated with the likes of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk.
Child of the 60's reporting on life as i have lived and observed it, so stop trying to use your assumption about my youth to discredit what I had to say.
@@annamyob I'm not discrediting you, just trying to figure out how many layers of propaganda we were dealing with. Your information is wrong: lesbian separatism was never a reaction to transpanic.
A woman who all of sudden is attracted to men on testosterone likely had a hormone imbalance so it is likely she only thought she was attracted to women due to the imbalance. Why not address the hormone imbalance instead of settling for settling for a same sex attraction and keep the hormones imbalanced.
I transitioned in 1983 and the so called care of Charing Cross hospital. I was a feminine gay boy from Ireland. Sexually abused aged 8 by a neighbour boy .
When it became apparent that I was gay I was relentlessly bullied by Irish society, I was still a kid but a sexual outlaw as far as society was concerned.
Part of a very neglectful dysfunctional family, my mum died when I was 11 my father emotionally damaged and distant .
When I found out I could transition into a woman and be redeemed from being called filthy names I was totally elated.
I lived as a woman for eight years ( 83 to 91 ) I was just about to have surgery in Charing X hospital when thank god I realised I could be making the biggest mistake of my life.
Gradually I de transitioned and lived as a gay man ever since. I thank God every day I didn’t go through with surgery. The doctor I was under in Charing X at the time was unconcerned about me or my life, it was his career and reputation that he cared about. He was eventually told to resign because so many people had surgery under his “ care” and regretted it .
Thank goodness I had the courage to reject surgery.
I'm sorry for the abuse you suffered - no child should have to deal with that. I fight the 'minor attracted' creep as much as I can.
That’s a fascinating story. Have you ever considered going public with it?
Thank you Stella .
I have considered it actually and a therapist mentioned that my story should be made known to more people.
I think your story needs to be heard. Thank you for sharing.
It's funny that everyone called you filthy names when being gay but not so when you donned a dress as a male. I started seeking medical care in the early 90's and it was not easy. There was no social network and you'd better want to be a full woman and you'd better pass. I wanted to control my secondary sex characteristics yet had no problem presenting as male. I kept getting denied and had to burn through several psychologists while keeping my weight 10% below normal to control those androgens which governed the sex characteristics. Twenty years later in 2011, I finally got the estrogen and orchiectomy and am happy presenting as a more youthful male.
Stella here wants you to campaign against transgender medicine but the conservatives are coming for the gays after they finish with us. Either way you are damaged goods to them and will be regarded as a sex offender for engaging in these two communities.
Julie Bindel's clarity, intellectual rigour, humanity and humour help me to parse the the BS from the complex reality. Julie is a hero(ine). Thank you Julie for your courage.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
@@lancewalker2595 Claiming she has zero perspective and empathy is just daft.
Julie Bindle is hands down the most compassionate, knowledgable, intelligent, honest person who has so much personal integrity. I love listening to her. I’ve seen her speak a number of times and love her direct and accountable approach to the work she does. Great show today…….🙏🙏🙏🙏
I very much enjoyed her video with Douglas Murray - it's an education that's for sure without the politics stifling the truth
I really respect that Julie always holds the most vulnerable, the voiceless, at the centre of her research. The real nitty gritty, not just the surface level information. These are the people who will be / are suffering most with the current gender orthodoxy and she is able to really clearly explain why. Brilliant woman. I could listen to her all day!
Ironically, those on the other side of the debate fervently believe (or are afraid to admit otherwise) that they hold “the most vulnerable, the voiceless, at the centre” of… absolutely everything.
It’s pretty easy to discern who is thinking this through and forming options based upon first principles from the ideologically possessed mouthpieces.
@@stvbrsn Exactly! I'll bet everything that absolutely none of those people have ever spent time with families like the ones Julie has. It's all dinner party stuff.
@@jessk7240right. Only watched for Julie's insight.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Julie always says that neo liberal / pop/ choice feminists prioritise breaking the glass ceiling, whereas Julie prioritises liberating the women in the “basement”!
The genuine pain on the faces of Stella and Sasha as they listen to Julie was overwhelming. Thank you all three of you for a very powerful, painful and necessary podcast. Julie is fascinating and a marvel.
Wow! I've listened to quite a few interviews of Julie Bindel and this is the best by far! I never knew just how nuanced she is. The perspective she has! And also, she isn't afraid to point out how she has been wrong, and also the reasons for it. A remarkable person.
Perspective? I suppose, at least according to the belief that feminism is incontrovertibly RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, which is TRUE according to 'Feminist Epistemology', which convincingly argues: “SHUT UP! FEMINISM IS, LIKE, SO TOTALLY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! why? BECAUSE WE HAVE A SUPERIOR 'WAY OF KNOWING'! ONLY NON-FEMINISTS ARE BEHOLDEN TO 'OUT-DATED' PATRIARCHAL STANDARDS OF EMPIRICISM, LOGIC, AND REASON!"
Crying... Fighting bs Trans. Far from chucking my child out. She lives with me. We share much love despite her still identifying as Trans bloke. 6 years on... at 21, she has no hormones or surgery. I have fought and argued with so many teachers, counsellors etc. Every step heartbreaking. So alone.
There are groups of parents out there offering support. Sorry I don't know any of the links but I believe Mumsnet has many women in a similar position to yourself
😘😘😘😘😘
Stay strong for her, know you are not alone and that your righteousness chastises the wicked.
@@zimzob That's very moralistic. "Righteousness chastises the wicked"? Exactly what they've said about lesbians all my life.🙄
I hope your daughter never chooses to harm her body. I'm a lesbian and my wife and I often talk about the fact that we're loosing great butch lesbians to this nonsensical trans bs. I hope she finds a way to feel good in her own body and enjoy it.
Julie is an absolute warrior. My respect and gratitude ❤
Julie Bindel Rocks thanks for interviewing her. Loved it.
Julie Bindel! My hero! I hope she is recognised for all the work she has done and is doing for women. I hope she is remembered for the key role she played in standing up to trans identified males which in turn kept girls and women safe. I hope she isn't erased from history like so many lesbians are. I hope she goes down in history.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Thank you for having Julie Bindel! She spells things out so clearly.
Queen Julie,long may she be with us!
Massive respect for Julie I always learn something or gain a different perspective after listening to her. Very inspiring and makes me want to do more to protect our girls ❤
Julie is amazing. I try to be aware of actual, on the ground , women’s issues and the law and policies etc. Yet, she illustrates and informs and really makes me (re)think . Amazing informed perspective. Amazing woman.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Fantastic Interview! Thanks ladies!
I've at episode 4.. I have to take brakes but I really like Julies new podcas. I've felt sorry for most parents dealing with these issues but when Julie told a father it's not his fault for not knowing and pointing out how much pressure he was under I started crying
❤ TY for telling him that Julie ❤
Looking forward to your interview 😊
Hmm... I thought she said the parents were all attention seeking narcissists.
great interview - really nice to have firm clarity on her views on innate sexuality and 'political lesbianism' - no one can be bothered to actually listen to her, so i have been confused by those claiming she has views she doesn't!
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
What views of hers do you think people have misunderstood?
@@raincadeify her opinions on political lesbianism.
@@joandarcfeminist I'm not familiar with the misunderstanding. Is she for PL or against it?
@@raincadeify seemingly against it (as she says in the interview here) but she sounds like she has more tolerance for women who says they're PL than I would!!
However many people seem to think Julie herself is a straight woman who claims to be a political lesbian. Which I don't get. Beyond her saying that she is a lesbian who is political and seeming to not care much about the confusion haha.
Fascinating discussion, much food for thought
Thanks ladies ❤
Wow, amazing episode that went so deep into reality it almost seems unreal. Thank you all, much respect.
What I love about her the most, its her ability to be critical about herselve and actually being able to admit she has been wrong in the past, own up to it and addapt. Remarkable.
Julie Bindel is one of my absolute favorite people tyat tackle this problem. She's a hero.
I really liked the how honest and transparent Julie was. Being able to admit she was wrong, that is so rare in our culture. I am a 52 yo gay man, and I related to some things she was saying. The whole born this way thing. It's like Thethe chicken and egg problem. Am I gay because of a distant father and "smother dearest". It kind of fits my story. Or is it my inherent gayness that pushed my father away? I mostly date black men, that is my preference. I am a white Eastern European. Almost all of them revealed to me some history of sexual abuse by a relative or a neighbor.
If you decide gayness comes from growing up in a dysfunctional home or from some kind of gender confusion, then you are pathologizing all gays universally. It's an inherently unhealthy framing for a normal, healthy variation of sexuality. I don't see that.
You are saying being gay is likely the outgrowth of sexual abuse. Is societal acceptance by endorsing gay marriage and not being arrested for consensual gay relations between adults just perpetuating this cycle? Criminalization of homosexuality is the case you are making and in Texas, they are ready to prosecute and to the tune of 20 years imprisonment with hard labor. I think almost anyone can cite issues with parents.
Furthermore the egg comes about in other organisms and then as species change, the egg was their before the species. This just shows your inability to critically think. The problem I have with you is that anti-gay politicians will use your arguments like they did those of Chloe Cole and curtail rights. Maybe you want to be in prison or have had a terrible time with gay relations. You are not putting your best foot forward and if you are harboring abuse issues, I suggest you not bring them into current and new relationships.
@@DorianPaige00 Thank you for taking the time to respond so cogently to that silly comment. I'm 67 yo and am appalled to see this regressive idea popping up, especially coming from a gay man. It's like we're in Anita Bryant's America again.
@@raincadeify This is much worse because they are organized and now have the networks to do damage like Fox, Qanon, X, and other smaller ones. The internet brings like minded people together and can unify factions to launch attacks under a focused strategy that's been prove effective in the past. The folks in the video are somewhat centrist but everything LGBT is being put under strict scrutiny and being interpreted for a certain political gain. When Hilary Cass said I didn't mean all minors need to be taken off their medical regimens, that was Cass clarifying her words. Yet others interpret it different in a swoop to ban care, label it child abuse, and head toward dismantling adult gender medicine, birth control, vaccines, and SSRI's with the same arguments.
@@DorianPaige00 What a load of hogwash, Texas is not going to recriminalize homosexuality, nobody’s even proposing that.
Whose rights to do what were “curtailed” because Chloe Cole spoke up about her abuse by medical professionals ? Sounds like blaming the victim to me
Excellent show. Glad she talked about Lesbianism and us Lesbians and even those Lesbianns who decide to transition and end up attracted to men while taking testosterone. Here's my take having seen this phenomenon in San Francisco around a certain generation of transitioners: all that worship of maleness and their newly masculinized bodies, feelings and emotions and increased sex drives: bisexual men would be only too willing to accomodate and male identified Butch on Butch couples, once one trans begin to identify far more heavily with gay men and their casual sexuality, than with other Lesbians. Often once one transitioned, the other was not far behind. And essentially bisexual men would all too willingly take advantage of this. And they would end up once they " passed" being far more accepted in certain circles of gay male culture, having left us Lesbians behind.
Some would identify themselves as " queer" and date both men and queer" women which was terribly dangerous for us Lesbians, the lowest risk group, whereas gay/ bi men ESPECIALLY in SF were the highest risk group for AIDS and other STDS.
It was decades after us Lesbians been infiltrated by TIMS/ MTFs that true Gay Men began noticing this infiltration by FTMs that they then began objecting to Females crashing their sacrosanct gay male spaces....
Really good interview overall.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Superb episode!
Whit two great interviewers and an extraordinarily knowledgeable, articulate and passionate guest why am I surprised?
Great interview.
Thank you so much for your work on this difficult topic.
I was surprised though when Julie said there are no working class doctors. There are, I and many of my colleagues come from working class families. We went to medical school in the 1980's and did so with no tuition fees and a grant for living expenses. I think it is very different now and that is not good for the profession, the NHS or most importantly our patients.
Yes, I was surprised she said that, my nephew is a doctor and he comes from a very working class family in West Brom.
Once you become a doctor, you're not working class, you've got a tremendous amount of privilege. And everyone is constantly reminded of it by that title "Dr" ever in front of your name. (Which was fought for by the medical profession in order to reinforce that privilege... read up on the history sometime.) Not that having a working class background doesn't start you off in a very different status than somone better off. But it's remarkable how much people's attitudes change once they've settled into a more privileged position and lifestyle. Half the family conflicts I know of have to do with the adult class differences between siblings who grew up in the same house!
Fantastic episode, thanks to all. Julie is amazing ⭐
Love Sasha and Stella. The podcast series Julie in Genderland sounds worth a listen . I believe there is a huge majority of people who know that the trans trend is harmful and wrong but who are being pushed one way or another to not publicly speaking out about it as people are being blasted as transphobic for anything they say which does not immediately affirm everyone without question. Some people, a very small minority may be better off living as trans. That is different from the "craze" and "trend" that is going around at the moment. Overall the potential and real health issues of pumping opposite sex hormones into your body should be enough for anyone sane to think 1000 times and eliminate any other solutions before going down that road. If at the end of the day it is best for your condition then so be it but the majority of people transitiioning it is not helpful for.
From 1962 too- (Scandinavian)feminist Got a bit Clever along the Way..🤔😄 but not lesbian; so still a feminist under ongoing reconstruction- Getting pregnant helped a lot 😂..
Its the deep dive we still need- AND as long we cant have an open minded debate about the Woman constitution; Were not there.. !! Thanks to all of you 🙏🏼🙏🏼
This was one of my favorite episodes.
women changing sexuality based on T levels confirms what we already know about birth control. Women report similar results when coming off BC - usually changing what type of man they're attracted to, but sometimes even jumping from homosexual to heterosexual or vise versa!
Julie, alongside Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce and a myriad of others, are heroines - I'd say Buck Angel too but dude...😉! You two are pretty well up there too!
Those are some of my faves too!
Julie Bindel is a true feminist--committed to women's rights, committed to researching and investigating reality in order to better secure women's rights, and because of this commitment, she is readily prepared to admit to mistakes and change her mind. Her cause, women's rights, is more important to her than her thoughts, her career, her identity, her trajectory.
But the gene thing...
There's no tallness gene, either, no single gene that determines a person's height, but tallness has an uncontested strong genetic/biological component. Genes and biological traits operate in very complicated and complex ways, and certain parts of thousands of genes are involved in the generation (note the etymology) of a so-called complex trait. The inexistence of a gay gene doesn't mean that there are no genetic/biological/innate factors in same-sex attraction. There very well might be, and same-sex attraction might also be multi-factorial, and for some people the genetic combination that encourages/determines/encodes same-sex attraction might differ from the genetic combination that encourages/determines/encodes others' same-sex attraction, because certain "environmental" triggers did or didn't happen. And environmental, in biology, includes the uterus, hormones, etc. It's not just " society". Nature versus nurture, "a gay gene", these simplifying and simplistic notions of how human biology and human behavior relate aren't helpful and they aren't science -based.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
That seems to argue that it IS science based ie they have found no proof of this YET although it may be found sometime in the future. Scientists rarely say something is impossible to ever happen but they do say they have seen no scientific evidence that such and such exists.
It’s so good made me cry of course
Yay Lisbon
So pleased to see Julie Bindel on the show. I used to loathe Julie -- I think because I disagreed with her on the issue of the legal status of sex work. I do not and have never been involved with paid sex. But I do have friends who are sex workers (not the pampered 'escorts' who are mostly legal anyway, but streetwalkers who face legal consequences on a regular basis) and it seems ridiculous to me that they should be criminalized for how they 'choose' to earn a living.(My main remainining disagreement with Julie is about the extent to which this is a free choice.) That said, I agree with all of her other arguments re. sex work and I'm much more sceptical of the position I used to hold today. Those industrial scale brothels in Germany really do seem like a 1950 sci-fi writer's depiction of hell on earth.
Over the last four or five years though, I've been paying closer attention to her work and the woman really is a national treasure. She's funny, clever, rational, doesn't take herself too seriously -- and she's on the right side of history. Often, we think that there's no point in arguing on the internet -- everyone is just stuck in their echo chamber and nobody ever listens to people they disagree with or changes their mind. Julie Bindel has changed my mind about all manner of stuff. Really looking forward to the show.
Has Julie not always been for the Nordic model? I know that's her current stance and doesn't involve the criminalisation of vulnerable sex workers
She wants the punters criminalised, not the women. Dont know where you got that
idea from?
But yes she is a great character, big hearted resolute and honourable. And she knows how to enjoy herself, a humouros epicurean.
She is also really charismatic with the sparkliest blue eyes.
How do the Trevor Project get to put their community notes on these videos?
@@Cloudcraft6032 $$$$$$$&
How did I not know about Julie in Genderland?? Thank you for this interview.
The podcast was amazing. It should be a learning package for medical, nursing, social worker, counselling staff. 🇬🇧❤️❌❌
Such an excellent conversation.
Hey you tube remove your junk trans bias warning.We are independent adults here
Hear, Hear! click on the dots to the right, on the thing, and "send feedback"
You can do what you like as an adult but this is about safeguarding children and young people from dangerous ideologies and irreversible medical interventions that destroy their bodies. We will not be silenced by you.
I’m watching this ten days after this comment, and I didn’t see any kind of warning.
testosterone and oestrogen is not just hormones but they release pheromones, i think the attraction is related to pheromones
There's no evidence that humans have a pheromone sensing organ or gland
Adore her! Her Substack is just brilliant. Avid reader.
I do disagree about there being a kind of genetic tie to homosexuality, however. There being examples of homosexual *behaviour* (keyword) lend what I feel is a very valid reason to consider the existence of a universal gene amongst living species on the planet. However, I do agree that it doesn't matter if there is one!
I greatly appreciate Julie's frank conversation on the gay gene premise. Yes there are terrible conversion therapy organizations. Then there are programs that are very similar to support recovery from addiction. I make this comparison because I have participated in all three. I believe human sexuality is a basic instinct. How I engage that instinct is my choice.
Julie! 💜💜💜💜
My ex-husband was a doctor (hospital Consultant, with publications and zillions of degrees). His father was a railway signalman who left school at age 14. (This was quite a long time ago.)
Great explanation for female collusion in the movement.
Julie Bindel is such an amazing voice for the intersections with class in all of this! That piece is pretty much always left out by 'woke' & transactivists - probably because what a class-based analysis shows isn't compatible with gender-ideol*gy narratives or the so-called liberal- or 'choice-feminism'...
Having attended a Kelly Jay Keen rally I thought the women in the TRA "cheer squad" actually had difficulty moving into adulthood. I seriously suspect there's a lot of mummy and daddy "issues" going on there.
I wouldn't have expected this, but recording the intro last makes me curious to see what the hosts have already seen!
YT has hit you with a Trevor Project sticker 🙄
It's a badge of honour at this point
There is a youtube channel Julie in Genderland as well as a podcast.
Julie ❤
I’m older than Julie but she’s spot on about the 1970’s where we were convinced there was nothing women couldn’t do, unlike men who could never bring life into the world. In a sense it was true if we lived in a women’s world but we didn’t, everything was geared around men, who also had 20 times stronger upper body strength etc. We failed to take in the powerful urge to have children, nurture them, raise them, that hits you like a thunderbolt, or the fact pregnancy can be dangerous as well as debilitating. Nature has a way of making us be more like our mothers than we care to admit.
You know, I've never felt the thunderbolt urge but i am with you on men's upper body strength. We can learn engineering right alongside men nut when it comes to brute strength... yea, no comparison.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
20 times? More like twice (proportional to body weight).
@@RandomGuyyy think of it more like 9 out of 10 men can overpower 9 out of 10 women without breaking a sweat.
@@zimzob Yeah, but think of the importance of weight divisions in boxing/mma etc. Ms Bindell would be a women's heavyweight, that's a man's middleweight. She could thump a vegan male cyclist probably.
Absolutely great discussion. My comment is for the very end of the podcast when ya'll were talking about doctors. I'm from NJ and I have less then zero trust in doctors anymore due to 1) the covid lies and forced vaccinations (I managed to avoid the poison) and 2) all this trans cr@p. My gyno asks what my gender is and my sexual preference as part of "required" paperwork. Seriously?? You can't tell by looking that I have a vjina. And my former GP was always pushing vaccines and treating me like a 2nd class citizen because I won't take anymore ever again. No flu shots, pneumonia, dtap,covid,shingles or any other BS they try to push on me. Exercise, moderation, and supplementation is my motto. I'm 60 years old and my only med is Bioidentical hormones. Unless I'm dying, I have zero plans to visit a doctor. All of the professional organizations pushing child mutilation and forcing upwards of 72 vaccinations by the time your 18 have proven to me that doctors can no longer be trusted. I realize there are good ones out there but they're very to find these days. I'll take my chanced.
The grooming gangs are still operating across the UK, not just "northern town".
Wherever there used to be a car manufacturing plant you'll find large Muslim migrant populations - Luton, Oxford, Bristol.
Nobody asked for my opinion, so here it is!
Babies aren’t born gay or straight. Children are not in the wrong body. Nobody is born trans.
You know what children are?
Children are potential.
And the potentialities emerge gradually over time (and shift and oscillate) as the child develops and matures. Thats right folks, it’s both nature *and* nurture, interdependent and intertwined.
This, combined with choices made by the child and parents, is what “determines” what the child will become.
Normally, I like to keep open the epistemic humility to think my mind could be changed, but not here. This is something I’ve been thinking about for decades.
What you are maintaining opens up a can of worms for those attempting to overcome Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
People who suffer daily from abuse and neglect through their childhood cling to the hope the maladapted responses to clung to to survive childhood can be modified.
Through conscious effort they can change unconscious desires and patterns.
Your comment's stance, overlapped with the gay conversion idea suggests an entirely malleable persona.
If trauma response can be "fixed" so can gay.
Maybe I'm being simplistic but how do you nurture a child to be gay if they don't see that behaviour in any of their family?
If kids are not born gay neither they are born straight so they are all bisexual.
@bogdiworksV2 abuse, grooming, porn, dominant/subservient male or female parent.
Did Julie answer the Q about her view of why gay women become attracted to men post testosterone?
❤Julie❤
Things can be hardwired without being genetic!
True, there could be a developmental aspect to it
There's a higher incidence in the younger sons in large families. But untangling epigenetic factors from social conditioning is very difficult. I suppose studying identical twins might put the argument to bed ?
For what it's worth, I think it's plain male and female sexuality have real differences; further, I think men's sexuality is actually more "rigid", and channels in specific ways that women's doesn't, quite possibly for genetic reasons.
I love Julie but she’s wrong when she says there are no working class doctors. I work in a surgery (clinical pharmacist) and two of our GPs are from local council estates. My niece is studying medicine and me and her mum (my sister) were also brought up on a council estate. It’s true that most are not from humble beginnings but to say none are isn’t correct.
They would be the first doctors I have ever heard of who are. I think they are an anomaly. I have been chronically ill for 13 years and have seen so many doctors and clinicians I can't count. Not one of them was working class, not a single one.
@@souxcasa I guess it depends what you mean by working class. If you’re born on a council estate, then get a place at med school, what are you when qualified? Personally I don’t like the word class. Does it go on your accent? Money? Job? Parents jobs? Where you were born? Is it where you start or where you finish?
I think she means qualified doctors. How many of those who were brought up on council estates still live in the area where they grew up?
I wish Julie blindel’s feud with Kellie Jay Keen would end. I KJK really platforms women so well, she was really the first and best at this. I like both Julie and Kellie, but as an apolitical person the very lefty ‘patriachy’ etc a bit tiresome. That letter to her after the riots was a bit (excuse the pun) left field, was it about Islamophobia (?) I dont know I have heard a lot of ex Muslim women guilt of that crime. I am perpetually confused these days.
I'm afraid Julie has some very close minded attitudes to politics.
Kelly Jay was 'rusted on' Labour until she saw how the state-provided services (ostensibly driven by left wing sentiment) were dismantling women's ability to organise a family around them.
I think being a lesbian has distanced Julie from the caustic nature of Wokeism upon the nuclear/extended family.
Julie Bindel claimed that transwomen were women and could be lesbians back in 2012. I wouldn't take anything she says seriously.
They are both great warriors for women & if joined would be a formidable team. I have a few theories why that won't happen though.
1) Both wanting the Queen Bee spot or is it that both are kinda lone wolfs so not good at teamwork ? I love KJK but I think she would be difficult to work with - her way or the highway.
2) From photos I have seen JB seems to be best buddies with a group of academic lefty elite feminists, therefore it is my opinion she traded freedom for friendship. She prevaricated on lots of transgender issues to come across as a 'civilised' feminist. Some of her friends truly have the knife out for KJ.
3) Also as she admitted, JB believed that biology made no difference and imo in some ways that birthed all this. I don't blame those older feminists for that, it's just that when they were fighting for women's rights in one way eg work rights etc, they were undermining women in another way - our biology.
@@yesnomaybeso3220 Kellie-Jay doesn't need to join forces with anyone because she's brilliant on her own. I couldn't admire her more after seeing the way she handled being attacked a second time yesterday.
If those older feminists believed biology didn't make a difference, then they couldn't have been fighting for women's rights.
@@Jace7310were you there?
I listened to Julie on another podcast, and understand her arguments about being a lesbian better now. I thought she'd said that women capable of being attracted to men could be lesbians, but I know now that's not what she meant. I agree with her about "gold star". Many women, for many reasons, have gone through the motions of sleeping with men without feeling a significant attraction to them.
However, her arguments against saying that we're born lesbian don't make sense to me. We're all born capable of some degree of physical violence, for example, but since when is that considered an excuse to be violent? Because a man might try to excuse a rape by claiming it's his nature (and it might be) means that we must never think that we are, from conception, destined to be attracted to other women? We can't have something (possibly being born lesbian, which I hope turns out to be true) because MEN might say the same thing about some aspect of themselves? We're supposed to give them the power to change how we might define ourselves?
Women used to work down mines - even when pregnant - and in fields (read what some of the Land Girls have said about their experience of working on the land in World War Ii, or the LumberJills' accounts), and in factoies and mills during the Industrial Revolution.
Are you boasting about how desperate people were?
To be fair, women did work on fields throughout history. Not sure about mines but fields for sure.
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Women worked down mines from when they were first dug until in the UK they were banned from working underground.
@roserowson8270 yes they did. It scandalised society when they found that woman would work topless because it was so hot
Women collude in their own oppression!! (Eve Sedgwick has said it before, but not in the trans context. I have been thinking the same thing and now I need to read your book! Thank you! 🙏
Don't blame this on women. These are a few women supporting this. Most women do not but they keep getting ignored and drowned out by activists who have taken over companies, sports bodies etc.
Another thing youre wrong about is your demonisation of social workers.
Sasha and stella should know that affirmative approach is pushed onto social care staff the same way it is on therapists
Julie might find the newer genetic studies into development & what influences gestational development very interesting.
The influences of natural proteins & chemical exposure in suppressing certain genes.
Environmental factors, not just physical but their social impact on mothers & their hormones on developing embryos.
Nutrition, stress, population demographics, war, etc.
Our different preferences may possibly be something evolutionary, adaptations required in our primitive stages when we lived in groups or had pressures like access to food or exposure to cold/heat etc.
Thanks for this interview. I certainly don’t agree with all Julie’s views but I always very much enjoy listening to her speak, and often learn new things. She is one of the feminists that I respect because she doesn’t seem to buy into liberal, middle class, self-entitled, self-indulgent feminist perspective's.
One place where Julie is spot on imo (and different from many other feminists), is where she talks about (56:00 mins onwards) how people (men and women) can be both victims and perpetrators. I have previously made some ‘feminists’ angry by making just this point, but there are plenty of obvious examples illustrating the phenomenon. For example, women (mothers, grandmothers etc) who are central to the continuation of FGM, or in historic China, foot binding. Yes men are involved but so are women - unsurprisingly, both men and women within a culture can, and often do, buy into the same cultural norms and practices. In that sense, both men AND women help maintain ‘patriarchy’.
I’ve never liked the term ‘empowerment’ - it’s a BS term suggesting an underlying victimhood framing, based upon a false narrative of oppression of women who already, and ironically, as evidenced by their own successes in life, undermine the notion of ‘patriarchy’ and victimhood - at least for women like themselves. In a country like the UK, life chances for men AND women are mostly based upon privileges of birth (the environment, intelligence and psychology that everyone through luck, or bad luck, are born into) and not so much biological sex.
One point: I didn’t really understand why there were so many mentions of there not being a gene for homosexuality: the critical and highly plausible scientific point is that many genes could be working together, along with other aspects of biology and the environment. The critical ethical point is that whether homosexuality has any genetic component or not, and whether it’s a ‘choice’ or not, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
This is so sick what is being done to children and women.
In 2013 TR had a BBC documentary.. Quitting the English defence league. When Tommy met Mo. In that grooming gangs were discussed. A woman MP related how she had been unable to get action taken
Fascinating discussion, but somebody was breathing heavily straight into their mic! All the way through.
Did Julie not quietly record any of her "therapy?" Just curious.
I'd be interested to hear Julie's take on Simone De Beauvoir's 1949 book "The Second Sex" and its role in separating sex from gender.
Without the idea that society creates a role and compels women to perform that role, would there be such a thing as "gender" in the sense the trans lobby characterises it today?
Or is the resentment toward societal strictures inevitably going to mean some people will be more happy adopting the man role instead of the woman role, and does that necessarily mean they desire total immersion in the "gender" role they are happiest living?
It would seem that "The Second Sex" is perhaps as prescriptive and seemingly coersive as the conservative societal model in maintaining that femaleness is an either or question.
I think speaking a more "gendered" language where particular pronouns go with particular nouns might make applying the "wrong" pronoun to a noun a political statement, but in English that act doesn't really work - hence the need to invent Ms.
I wonder if the French idea of gender and the English idea are not two separate ideas that have created the possibility for creating Peter Pan's "Never never" land on earth as it is in heaven? Has feminism spawned trans ideology by inventing a polar gender identity?
very, very intereting
Not only is gender identity false, all identity is false. To identify as anything, all you're saying is "I relate to this dimension but I don't relate to this other dimension" but they're all you in potentiality, and that is relevant because until that's clear, you'll always be seeing enemies where there are none.
No one is a lesbian, or trans, or a man or a woman even. They are convenient labels but they are not what you or anyone else actually is. Without taking ownership of anything, the psychological forces playing out in your experience can be seen for what they are. The unresolved trauma becomes apparent, the anger against groups (which you only imagine to exist) become apparent, as does the fear, sadness, etc. You see that everyone has always been innocent, including yourself of course, and the harm that you and others have unwittingly done in the name of projecting identities where there are none becomes more obvious.
More than anything, people need to know that they're innocent, that all their feelings are valid, and that their enemies are the same as them. Then they can heal the world. Until they do, they just provide more work to those who are already doing so.
I was counting the moments 'til the Jeanette Winterson reference was dropped . . . and it was!
I’m pretty fascinated by biology and the origin of sexual orientation and it always surprises me how many lgb people think that the answer is one single gay gene OR socialization. no other possibilities. especially because the scientific consensus right now is that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interaction of multiple biological factors (some genes, hormones, and other prenatal environmental factors) and the evidence for social factors influencing it is very weak. maybe other gay people just arent as interested in the question and havent kept up? and i also dont understand how “born this way” contradicts the phenomenon of people repressing or denying who they are until later in life. i do wonder if there is a generational gap in how people talk about attraction that also makes these conversations confusing.
I love your comment. I think for some reason the TQ movement has been trying to run away as much as it can from scientific basis, because that requires some level of analytic and intellectual honesty. They don't believe in discussing origins or causes (and even that these might not exist, remember this is a faith based movement) but rather in emphasizing the mental power of the individual to be whatever they say they are. There was a trans woman on a tiktok I once saw who was saying "let's move into that space where we don't have to explain anything about ourselves!". This is obviously exploiting women's empathy, the "be kind", to allow for fetishists to freely run around without ever having to be held accountable for their actions. And the teens being enlisted onto this life philosophy are too innocent to understand they are systemically being deceived and manipulated with this.
@@kateamanak I do think that the left has shied away from biology because of our understandable wariness about its ugly past of scientific racism/sexism, the pathologization of homosexuality and of course eugenics. and perhaps that has enabled the lgbt community to go off the rails with its anti-science attitude. ive even noticed how a lot of feminists are really uncomfortable with the idea that behavioral differences between the sexes arent entirely socialized and may have some biological basis. i would love to see the left place its trust in science again and have faith that nothing we learn about ourselves and our differences will ever justify the removal of human rights for any group.
@@kateamanak I've definitely noticed that the left in general has shied away from biology. it's sort of understandable to a point; scientific racism/sexism and the pathologization of homosexuality have been real issues historically. Obviously this doesn't mean that science is evil or something to be afraid of, though. and I do think that this anxiety around biology probably has contributed to the unscientific nonsense that is queer theory and everything that has come out of it. We shouldn't be afraid of trying to understand our bodies or any of the differences between groups that we might discover. No amount of diversity can justify discrimination or violations of human rights. I think this is what the left needs to understand. Hateful people will always try to use science to justify their hate, but the hate itself is the problem, not the science.
@@kateamanakwomen should stop being kind then. Also kindness doesn't mean agreeing with someone's delusion.
This is the problem with “academics” they interview someone for an hour for a “research paper” and think they know their entire existence. You have no idea. This panel is hilarious
Comp het is always such an interesting topic to me because I personally believed that I was asexual for maybe 5/6 years before even entertaining the idea of being attracted to women. I just thought well I ain't attracted to men so I'm not attracted to anyone 😂
Oh I see why my algorythm changed
Yes. There IS choice. Nature AND nurture.
Unless the mind is fixed but the flesh is not.
Let's not get the horse behind the cart in our conceits about what is true and what is desired.
21:00 it's lesbians all the way down 😂
I shall listen. I am female 80yoa no husband no child no fucking kidding. So i wear a foldable fishing-hat with a bunch of interesting stickpins: geographical, museums, cartoon characters.... I just spoke 20 words with tje Feminister former foreign min of Sweden after watching a film about her. She can be ironic, funny and humble in only two short sentences.😃
Radical Feminism is the LAST THING we should to be subjecting children, already struggling with their sense of self, to. Sorry, but seriously, this woman has ZERO perspective, and certainly no empathy, for the ENTIRE PROBLEM (which no, Julie, is not boys and the men you so resent their becoming).
The following is an is an award winning poem written by a 17 year-old boy named Royce Mann:
“Recently, I became a man. I didn't have a bar mitzvah. My dad didn't take me fishing or hunting. I didn't hit my first home run, grill my first hamburger or have my first wet dream. But recently I became a man. It happened the first time a woman avoided me on the sidewalk. I just had baseball practice and I was walking to meet my mom at a restaurant when the woman, 10 feet in front of me glanced back. I knew she was looking at me, but I had no idea what she was seeing. The separation between us was undeniable, but the distance wasn't enough. She changed direction, crossing the street like Moses did the red sea, trying Biblically to find freedom from me. Her footsteps taught me the danger of my own hands, taught me what it truly means to be a man. I may never know what it means to fear what she knew, but in that moment, I finally understood Peter pan. I wanted to stay a boy, not become a man, because a man is, I now knew, a mix between a father, brother, and attacker, and mostly the latter.”
This speaks explicitly to the underlying psychology of what has been dubbed "Peter Pan Syndrome", or "failure to launch syndrome", which has been widely documented as a persistent phenomenon among Royce Mann's generation (generation Z) of boys. The tragedy of this, and the reality that so many boys have been taught to see themselves in the ways described by Royce Mann, should be recognized as an important issue on account of the clear injustice it represents. The fact that such a declaration of self-loathing was celebrated indicates the fact that Royce’s example is one considered by the dominate feminist narrative to be something for every boy to aspire to emulate, proving all that needs to be proven to demonstrate how insidious and pervasive feminist ideology actually is. There is no possible justification for Royce Mann to feel any of the things he ascribes to himself on account of what he is, and society should reject the narrative responsible for his internalization of such thoughts for his sake, and for the sake of every boy subject to the same cruel narrative; having said that, it's worth pointing out the narcissism intrinsic to Royce Mann's disturbing sense of self. The implication is that boys and men have a kind of transcendent power over the perceptions and experiences of women and girls, which consequently further entrenches the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability inculcated in girls how succumb to the feminist narrative. It is the kind of narcissism that, to the intersectional left, is considered a virtue. Royce Mann was applauded for this poem, partly for his tragic self-loathing and unjust self-condemnation, but also for his tacit usurpation of responsibility and agency from women and girls in order to “hold himself accountable” for everything that isn’t within his power to control (the perceptions of a random woman on the street, for example). This was presented to the world (being read on platforms like NPR, and Good Morning America) not with the concern that this kind of pathological self concept would warrant in a sane and compassionate culture, no, instead it was presented and affirmed as something aspirational: “self aware” (despite the fact that it was never his self to begin with), and “empathetic”. Royce Mann is the ideal "feminist ally", the ideal product of what it means to “raise a feminist son”: his rejection and condemnation of himself is the only alternative to the "toxic-masculinity", itself a feminist construct and projection, offered to boys as they struggle to become men in this world. It is woefully ironic, ironic to such an extreme as to become straight forwardly and egregiously hypocritical, that the same people who lecture ad nauseam about the importance of “respect” and “empathy” should be the ones who actively encourage this kind of self-hatred in boys. In their perverse ideologically controlled minds, there is no room for doubt with regard to their own lack of respect, and definite lack of empathy, for boys, whose humanity their ideology actively denies while simultaneously encouraging a sense of profound powerlessness and fear in girls. We should all find it easy to explicitly reject this, and yet, both institutionally and culturally this narrative represents a kind of gospel.
Is it any wonder, considering this affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, that the younger generation would be so keen to embrace the choice of proactively redefining their “gender” identity? Does it not make a disturbing amount of sense, given this quite dismal representation of both males and females (the former as pathological monsters “accountable” only for the imposed perceptions of others, and the latter as powerless prey objects), that there has been such an enthusiastic over-zealous eagerness to supplant the binary of sex with “gender identity” (which can mean anything at all, and therefore means nothing whatsoever)? Who would choose to identify as a man (according to the distorted image of “men” created by feminism) when one could easily identify as "non-binary", or even better still, as the passive woman described in Royce's poem, the very woman who taught him "what it truly means to be a man"? What girl would choose to remain powerless and without agency when she could instead opt out of the expected burdens and hurdles ascribed to the “female experience” under the ephemeral oppression of ‘the patriarchy’? Thank goodness for gender identity! Perhaps Royce Mann, and the women who think Royce Mann needs to be taught “the danger of his own hands”, can schedule a “swap meat” with a gender affirmation surgeon: this way Royce can “never become a man”, and maybe even come to “know what it means to fear what she knew”; and she who fears what her own perceptions cause her to fear in Royce can finally get a share of his “male privilege”, here’s to hoping that she’ll be able to finally feel fully human through the experience of learning to accept what she is according to strangers who couldn’t care less who she actually is… it is, after all, this experience reflected by Royce’s poem, felt in silence by many other boys in the educational and cultural climate of today which we call “privilege”.
Interesting
6:43 narcissists
6:46 upper middle class
I wonder if trans men finding men attractive all of a sudden when on T could have something to do with biological drivers to procreate? Testosterone rises around ovulation to give us the drive to find a man to go and breed with. Perhaps it's that? I'd love to find out.
Oh great, just what we need... another method homophobes can try for "conversion" therapy.
Hi- I know it is important to work against this happening to children but can you PLEASE include the young 20's group more heavily? Just because these very traumatized kids turn 21 doesn't make their mental health problems go away. Because of their age, people seem to just say, oh well they are an adult- We don't do that with other body issues especially females with eating disorders.
Total respect for Julie Bendel and few problems with how she describes things but as for the genetics. she said they haven't found the gene but that is not the latest science -- so many have taken the 2019 study as definitive even thought it wasn't even dealing with sexual desire but behavior. But there has been a study of Men in China and another looking at men in one of the Nordic countries and they both supported the identification of 2 loci for homosexuality which is not much different than her description but it is suggesting that this point of development is a point that is set in the person's DNA while still in utero. These are both large sample size with significant reliability. So the hay guys may be onto something. Also just listened to the pod cast or at least 3 episodes. Great stuff talk about your gay and lesbian role models and heroes she is one.
I wonder if similar studies are being done regarding women's sexuality.
Harvard, MIT and the University of Helinski did that study for one. It was the largest study done on sexual orientation. Harvard is an ultra liberal university. Don't you think they would have found it if possible?
What year did Julie break grooming gang story
2004 in the Guardian I think, when it still did journalism.
I thought tommy robinson broke the grooming gangs stories
he didn't - he's done well at spreading that lie though, hasn't he!
@@joandarcfeminist Don't think he broke the story of the rape gangs, think that might have been Maggie Oliver a policewoman? But I do remember T Robinson saying that part of his motivation with his opposition to muslim male culture in Luton, was that his 14 year old cousin was groomed and drugged by a gang of those men.
If Robinson didn't break it, her certainly popularized it when the mainstream media was sitting on it with all the weight of their fat lardy arses. But I thought the story was actually broken by Andrew Norfolk in the Times? Sure, Julie wrote about the gangs and the phenomenon but that didn't seize the popular imagination. It was the fact that social services and police were sitting on it and doing absolutely nothing about it because they feared some backlash from muslim community activists and their handmaidens in politics and the media -- that was the thing that made it a real scandal, and that was the story Andrew Norfolk broke. I seem to recall Julie wanted to underplay the fact that this was a Muslim thing because 'all men are groomers/rapists' so the fact that these gangs were predominantly Pakistani Muslims wasn't something she thought was important or something she cared about? Am I misremembering this?
"Breaking" a story means you still think the legacy media has credibility.
In 2000 Adele Weir (later Gladman), a Yorkshire solicitor, was hired by Rotherham Council as a research and development officer on a Home Office Crime Reduction Programme pilot study, "Tackling Prostitution: What Works".
Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007.
Andrew Norfolk of The Times began reporting what was happening in 2011.
Tommy Robinson (b 1982) was raised in Luton and was alarmed at the self segregation of Muslims at his school during the 1990s, to the exclusion of all other races and religions.
Tommy is the son of a migrant Irish mother and has many south Asian (Sheikh and Hindu) and West Indian friends from school.
Tommy's cousin received harassment and smearing of her reputation at the hands of her Muslim male peers when at school.
When the world trade centre attack happened there were jubilant scenes in the streets by the local Muslim community in Tommy's home town.
When the gulf war veterans welcome home parade occurred in his home town the soldiers were spat at by jeering mobs of Muslim men with no action taken by the police.
Julie has swallowed the lie Tommy Robinson is somehow "Fascist" because she thinks Fascism is somehow opposed to Marxism (her own article of faith).
I am currently studying political philosophies of the 20th century following the TIK history channel who is just now exploring the genesis of all the major political movements arising after WW1.
Fascism and Marxism are unbelievably close political stablemates.
Modern Fascists actually call themselves Socialists!
Having heard a lot of his interviews, Tommy Robinson would in my mind qualify as a left of centre Labour voting Classical Liberal in the 1970s.
Julie is evidently and culturally a Militant Marxist. Ironically more likely to agree with actual Fascists than Tommy.
The Grooming Gangs scandal has revealed 80% of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims (6% of the UK is Muslim - some of them are Pakistani).
It is true some Hindu and Seikh girls have fallen prey to these men. It is NOT true Muslim girls have.
In 2013 tr had a documentary... Quitting the English defence league..when Tommy met Mo. In it the gangs were talked about and a woman MP related how she had been unable to get action taken
I knew of lesbians in the 80s who later had male partners and children
Wow, what context are you in that "gold star" is misogynistic? Where I come from, it was a recognition that being with men confers privilege (whether you want it or not, whether you realize it or not) and women who have never been with men never had that. A recognition that those of us who pass for many years before coming out, do so because of that privilege, and the homophobia drilled deep within us. And those who didn't pass, withstood those pressures. Not that it makes them "better" than anyone else, but that we might want to honor the bravery.
I'm not saying I never heard the phrase slung at someone as a dig. But that was not how we generally used it and not our understanding of its origin. Me, I always ADMIRED someone who faced what I did when young (and worse) yet stayed true to themselves.
Becoming deeply involved in feminism is often a path to lesbian ideologies.
Lesbian is not a ideology is a sexuality
Sasha I think Americans are more suspicious of doctors because it's a for-profit model here. You feel like they're trying to sell you things you don't really need - at least I have sometimes.
She obviously hates men but she's quite interesting to listen to.
🖤🫶🖤🫶🖤
Not a mention on how islam views women and girls ?? I think that religion has a lot to do with the grooming gangs. I think thats obfuscating Julie !!
Given it was her who broke the grooming gang story in 2004 it aint her who is obfuscating.
@@MarinaE-mo2wy don't get me wrong I really like Julie and watch everything she does, but people still pussy-foot around this subject for fear of being called nasty names. I still think she did a bit of pussy footing there.
@@littletree1343 Then how about a serious bit of gratitude to her, eh?
She was the first to break the grooming gangs and the first to break Gender ideology - she has fought prostitution and violence against women across the globe.
She has spent her whole adult life getting deathreats, and seeing things that would make you or I expire with distress.
I am so sick and tired of petty minded commenters who have done nothing, picking at her for apparent transgressions and not giving this Lion of a human her proper due and the fulsome gratitude she deserves.
@@MarinaE-mo2wy I believe my opinion, that she did a bit of pussy footing, does not denigrate her whole career, you need to keep your hair on !! People are allowed their own views, we should all be grateful that we live in a country where all women have autonomy and are free to express our views.
It's funny to me that they're trying to turn the term terf into a slur: Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist. It just says what it is, although people can be trans exclusive or phobic without being a feminist obviously. But in Bindle's case, it fits like glove. As a lesbian about the same age, she is a great disappointment.
terf originated as a slur and that is how it mostly has been used. The meaning being that we created women-only spaces out of transphobic hatred. Which is a reversal of the truth. We created them to care for ourselves, based on our experiences growing up as girls and going through female puberty and so forth. It wasn't about "excluding" TIMs, or men, it just wasn't about them. But some women choose to reclaim the word terf (i get the impression this is particularly true in Britain) whether to subvert it or in a more lighthearted way.
The whole idea that "exclusion" is evil is one of the many contradictions, hypocrisies, and gaslighting tactics of trans ideology. Trans ideologues have no problem whatsoever with excluding people, as long as THEY are the ones who get to decide who is excluded.
@@annamyob I have to wonder how old you are, because your summary doesn't match the order of events as I remember seeing them played out. It sounds more like a summary at the end of a telephone game; jumbled up and missing context. I was there in the 70's when lesbian separatism was gaining momentum among academic radical lefty lesbians. As you say, it was a self-affirming, woman-centered movement that had nothing to do with men or with trans people; I don't think you should assume that is what others who don't agree with the present day trans critical crowd (who, are neither feminist nor even lesbian in most cases) to be saying or thinking. That's a strawman. When some went from saying, we want a space that is only for women born women on private property, to publicly insisting that trans women aren't women and therefore should be excluded from bathrooms and medical care and schools, etc, it all took a more sinister turn. When so called "terfs" (I also don't think this is an accurate descriptor) insist on publicly challenging trans women and taking extraordinary efforts to exclude them, by refusing to use preferred pronouns and marginalizing them politically and socially in the same way my queer family was, it becomes very problematic, tone deaf and unself-aware. I'm heartened that most lesbians, women and feminists don't feel this way, but saddened that some others of my tribe, however small, will forever be associated with the likes of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk.
Child of the 60's reporting on life as i have lived and observed it, so stop trying to use your assumption about my youth to discredit what I had to say.
@@annamyob I'm not discrediting you, just trying to figure out how many layers of propaganda we were dealing with. Your information is wrong: lesbian separatism was never a reaction to transpanic.
❤🇬🇧❌❌
A woman who all of sudden is attracted to men on testosterone likely had a hormone imbalance so it is likely she only thought she was attracted to women due to the imbalance.
Why not address the hormone imbalance instead of settling for settling for a same sex attraction and keep the hormones imbalanced.