Preparing to face the crybullies
I’m writing this on my way to Oxford, where I’m speaking to the Balliol Philosophy Society. That means facing people who think my mainstream and factual beliefs are the most extreme hatefulness
I’ve spent a lot of the past week watching the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal in Dundee remotely. I’m sure many of you will have been following too, perhaps on X, where the estimable Tribunal Tweets has been doing a remarkable job, and perhaps also, like me, by watching live on the court link until the system crashed and the judge decided not to allow anyone except journalists and a few other interested parties (I received permission to continue to watch, since I intend to write about it for my Critic column).
If you are not a subscriber to my newsletter, Joyce Activated, you might like to sign up for free updates. I hope that in the future you might consider subscribing.
I’ll have more to say about the Peggie hearing, but for now I thought I’d share a short update linking to some of the most interesting and revealing pieces written by others.
Michael Foran in the Critic explaining how a person’s sex isn’t private information. That’s true even if a person doesn’t like being the sex they are, even if they desperately want everyone else to pretend their sex, and even if that person holds false beliefs about the possibility of changing sex. And in situations where someone else’s consent hinges on the question of that person’s sex, they have a positive obligation to act according to their actual sex, not the sex they wish they are or pretend they are. All of this should be obvious, but judging by his evidence Dr Upton appears not to understand it. This piece is the most important from the point of view of patient care within the NHS.
A really wonderful piece from grassroots campaign group For Women Scotland about “manly-man Pete”, a character invented by Sandie’s counsel, Naomi Cunningham (also chair of Sex Matters, but not acting here for Sex Matters in any way). Pete was Naomi’s attempt to force Upton to explain what precisely it was about him – a male person, a man, a he/him – that made him in his opinion female and a woman. It was a frustrating listen!
And a thought-provoking reminder from Milli Hill on her Substack that although Upton comes across as unbelievably unpleasant – from my observation narcissistic, self-centred, spiteful and evasive – when it comes to the absolute nonsense he spouted on how he’s actually female because he says so, he’s just repeating what’s taught as gospel now in schools and universities. Acquaintances of mine have trained as doctors in the past decade, and they are genuinely being taught this crap. Some wag online said his testimony was like a “transactivist greatest hits” Twitter thread – well, that’s the medical-school syllabus these days.
I’m writing this on my way to Oxford, where I’ve been invited to speak to the Balliol Philosophy Society. This is a small event – around 60 seats, I think – and open only to holders of Oxford University IDs. It’s not going to be filmed.
It’s the sort of thing that happens hundreds, probably thousands, of times a year at Oxford, and similarly at every other big, research-heavy university. And yet predictably I’m not talking about some very mainstream beliefs based on objective facts, I’m committing a hate crime. Here’s the Cherwell – the Oxford University newspaper – condemning my and other people’s “transphobia”. These kids really need to learn to fact-check – I haven’t worked for The Economist since 2022. And they really need to sense-check what they write – they quote me (accurately) as having tweeted that I would be “particularly pleased to see people who disagree with me turn up and debate civilly.” How civil and open-minded of me!
There’s also a petition condemning me, and Balliol for hosting me, which is a similar (though even more overwrought) mix of inaccuracies and perfectly reasonable statements that are somehow meant to make me look bad. I very much like this description of my beliefs: I assert “that trans identity is the product of indoctrination by ‘gender ideology’, which she compares to a ‘godless neo-religion.’ Joyce refuses to recognise transgender identity and regularly refers to trans men as ‘trans-identifying women’ and trans women as ‘men’. Joyce opposes the legal and social recognition of transgender people, and any legislation, which outlaws discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. She further opposes access to transgender healthcare, arguing that it is ‘conversion therapy’ and that ‘they’re sterilizing gay kids’.” Indeed, that’s all precisely right.
I’m less impressed by “engages in antisemitism”, which is not just false but defamatory. And I’m deeply puzzled by this: “She states on her social media profiles that ‘Shame needs to switch sides’, implying that individuals should be ashamed of being transgender, but not of promoting anti-trans prejudice.” Have they never heard of Gisèle Pelicot?! I added that to my Twitter profile towards the end of the trial of her dozens of rapists, as many other women did, as a statement of solidarity with her. Just shows what a narcissistic movement transactivism is: everything has to be about them.
I’ll update you all on how it goes afterwards. But basically, I feel like I win no matter what happens. Either there are protests, the gender-identity ideologues show yet again what intolerant bigots they are and Project Let Them Speak has another victory. Or there are no protests, I get to talk to a bunch of people, some of whom hopefully don’t agree with me – and it’s another signal that the hold of totalitarian sex-denialism on our universities is finally weakening.
If you are signed up for free updates or were forwarded this, and would like to subscribe to my newsletter, Joyce Activated, click below.