Being face-to-face in a room with Helen Webberley, the 'Gender GP', felt similar to the times I have interviewed rapists and murderers in prison. I was in the midst of a malign presence
Thank you for facing this ghoul head on. That evil (and malevolence that HJ refers to) comes across in spades during both interviews. How you sat opposite her and kept your temper is testimony to your professionalism. You and HJ each took one for the team here. We’re damn lucky to have you amazing women.
You made your very important points admirably Julie- with control, precision, knowledge of the facts, and didn’t allow yourself to be bullied or manipulated by Webberly who came across as deluded (obviously) but also juvenile, sarcastic, and completely without merit- not able to answer even the fundamental questions that you put to her. You may have felt depressed by the end but you were brilliant.
Thank you for taking the psychic (and physical) body blows, Julie. Thank you for speaking for so many of us, but especially for women and girls and all children who continue to be harmed by Webberly and her kind. She clearly trained extensively with her nonbinary "team" for both interviews: bullying, smearing, sneering, and deflecting tactics at every turn. It was sickening to listen to her. You, however, did not need a team, nor did Helen Joyce. You did not need to train for the debate because you have truth on your side and sword-sharp clarity in your mind. As far as being "in the presence of evil," I can only think that when a human being becomes little more than a shell for profit and its oppressive ideology, what is left is a dark void emitting a noxious and psychic tar to anyone who encounters such a person. Thank you again.
I was also thinking the same thing. When you have the facts and evidence on your side the truth will be revealed. I would like to say ‘easily’ but I suspect this was emotionally incredibly draining for Julie and her ability to stay calm is simply magnificent.
I found the experience of listening to that woman extremely disturbing, counter logical and utterly lacking in intelligent and critical thinking. She tried to turn everything you said into a denial and to make you appear to be making up stuff that she had said - which she had, in fact, said. She constantly tried to wrong foot you. How you kept your cool, I do not know.
I'm afraid I had to give up on listening before the end as she so enraged me, but she also terrified me, so relentless was she in proclaiming this massive harm to innocent children as if she was Mother Teresa. Not sure if she is a true psychopath, but she is something very close: sadistic and self-congratulatory; unheeding of the harms of this 'gender medicine' in the pursuit of personal gain ; and completely lacking in any form of self-awareness or remorse. Yes, 'evil' probably is the right word. She is not the only one.
Although I believe firmly that men are behind this ideology and movement for sexual kicks, control and money, mainly, so many, many women are their enablers that they make me sick to the pit of my stomach that they are the same sex as I am. Stay strong, Julie, and please try to create a united front with other women fighting this stuff, even if you don't agree with every aspect of their approach. We should be calling a spade a shovel at this stage, and this is where we went wrong in the beginning: we gave them an inch and they took a mile.
There are many, many woman (including lots of mothers) involved in pushing and promoting this evil agenda. To believe that is mostly man is dangerous and ignorant.
Oh, I know that there are many females involved, Sonia. I despise them. I have never denied that fact. This ideology, however, is male, as queer theory is male, and was long before Judith Butler. I do not, however, like you, make the mistake of thinking that women are at the sharp end of this. All the Big Tech, Big Pharmaceutical, AI, etc. industries are owned by MEN. They are the ones who have bankrolled this stuff.
I have never underestimated my own sex's penchant for being sublimely stupid in the face of male demands and entitlement. The original foot soldiers of this movement were sexual fetishists and paraphiliacs - male - but they had to find a way round the fact that everyone knew yesterday that this was all rooted in sexual feelz and pornography, and what better way than to claim that that they had been born in the wrong body and knew that since they were toddlers?
That prompted many silly/deranged women to feel sorry for them and to sacrifice their children (and also because it made them feel good, too - a kind of sexual virtue-signalling obeisance). Oh, no, Sonia, I don't believe it is all men, far from it, but it is all men at the helm, as per. No woman that I have ever heard of has led a movement that is inimical to human survival. Many men have and still do. Open your eyes.
Thank you Lorna, for your answer. I said what I said because in US at least in most cases is the mom that starts her child on GAC meds 😢 But I dounderstand at the helm of this ideology is man, perverted, sick pedofiles
Thanks so much Julie for this clear account. Because the notion of ‘evil’ in our culture has religious roots, it is difficult even for secularists to resist reaching for the word. Sadism is shot through gender ideology like Blackpool rock. Look at WPATH Soc 8 and the contorted logic of turning castration into a blow for social justice. It was insinuated there by sadistic paedophiles. Your campaigning is spot on Thanks
I saw it and you were a freaking saint. Plus you just let her run her mouth, gave her enough rope and away she went. How in the world is she a doctor? She has no grasp of rational thinking that you’d think would be necessary for getting through medical school. Or is she just from a posh home? I wonder what she was like at medical school? She seems not the full quid.
How is she still known as Dr if that's the case?! It's crazy! If you saw the debate with Helen Joyce, Webberley repeatedly put Helen down for not being a Dr! It was another very painful watch 😒
We are so blessed to have such amazingly, strong and knowledgeable Women like Julie B & Helen (Joyce) & Sex Matters on this subject.
I know, and disappointingly the interviewer didn't challenge her on it. Fact is this 'crazy' was suspended by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MTPTS) prior to, and after a fitness to practise hearing in 2022. But the 'misconduct ruling' relating to the treatment of 3 so called 'trans children', and that was unbelievably overturned at the High Court in 2023. Regardless of this, Webberley still had her licence to practise in the UK withdrawn by medical authorities. That she thinks children can decide upon 'treatments' which irreversibly alter & damage their bodies & development, but the esteemed Helen Joyce has no qualification to question a struckoff Doctor beggars belief!
Just checked it out, and incredibly, Helen Webberley is still 'registered' as a doctor despite losing her 'license to practise'. That she can even use the title of Dr after her conduct is appalling.
Well done Julie. The interview was a very hard watch and extremely rage inducing so you did extremely well to stay so calm, rational and evidence focused.
Webberley comparing trans women to black or disabled women was utterly shocking. Her denial of the appalling and rising epidemic of violence and abuse perpetrated against women and children and men was quite frankly disgusting. Shame on her.
I was wondering why she is participating in these interviews. I suspect a grift for money is driving it. I can understand why you questioned giving this lunatic any air time but ultimately I think the world needs to see the madness that has been going on and the damage to children and families.
I think you did really well in exposing her manipulative, narcissistic behaviour for all to see. I haven’t watched Helen’s interview yet because I’m still recovering from yours!
I didn’t believe evil existed until I went on Reddit. Hearing Webberley speak has confirmed it.
Absolutely staggering!! Yes men can be raped and obviously it’s appalling but her denial about the seriousness of what women have and continue to face was beyond belief.
Julie made a very clear and good point that we don’t believe all men are rapists just because we exclude them from women only spaces and services. I don’t know if Webberley was wilfully misunderstanding or if she is just thick!
i used to spend way too much time on reddit. now all i can see it as is a scourge of delusional people. they’re all so sick with the way they espouse this ideology and how smug and sure of themselves they are when they threaten real women with violence when we express concerns for our safety. there’s truly no getting through to them, and it’s very saddening. it’s like a mass psychosis. i’m on there less and less because it just enrages and devastates me.
It’s a truly horrible place. I left after getting a life time ban for calling Imane Khelife a bloke and referring to a convicted male pervert as he! It’s full of angry, nasty men.
i’ve heard that a lot of the mods on those main subs are mentally ill trans identified males too so it makes sense. they have way too much power and really enjoy flexing it, probably because they don’t have an actual job and want to hurt others with any little bit of power they can have. if they can ban people, then they can make it so that no one is allowed to challenge their delusions. and fuck imane khelif! disgusting, fetishistic woman beater. everyone involved in the olympics and all of his supporters should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they won’t be.
you’ve perfectly described how i feel after a debate or even a civil disagreement (despite 8 yrs of phil to become a competant debater, i much prefer collaboration).
the reason why it feels bad is b/c groupthink was an adaptive strategy when we lived more primitively. our bodies register disagreement as danger. Webberly exploits this vestigial trait to herd us into profitable (for her), maladaptive (for everyone else) and suicidal behaviors.
so, THANK YOU for helping evolve the species while also saving lives ❤️🩹 you’re showing us how it’s done!
What so many females appear to have is 'suicidal empathy' which can only be bad for all women as a sex class. This may well have its roots in survival strategy, but, as any evolutionist would attest, when you continue to behave in ways that undermine your group, you endanger yourself and the whole group (women and girls) in such a way that you could halt the group's evolutionary journey by taking it back to extreme male domination and sexual exploitation or, worse, to destroy it as a group (sex class, in this instance).
If Ira Levin's 'Stepford Wives' becomes reality (female robotic entities that look just like women and can service men just like women, and, of course, can hatch babies through artificial means) then this 'suicidal empathy' is guaranteed to hasten the extinction of the female half of the species. I might be paranoid, but I'm half-way to thinking that this is precisely what this is all about, in reality: transhumanism. Behind it are men, all men, in the tech and AI industries.
I don't think that's the case. Think of all the men who volunteer to fight and die in wars, often on behalf of people they've never met, or those who carry out dangerous jobs and rescue missions. Sabrina Spielrein characterised the death-drive (thanatos) as an essential part of the reproductive cycle, ensuring that one generation gives way to the next.
Warriors and First Responders are socially valued b/c their sacrifice fits into a social contract that (supposedly) protects society as a whole. their sacrifice is termed Valor and Heroism. the act of throwing oneself on a grenade has context, intent and perceived purpose.
contrast that with "suicidal empathy" which is a pathological psychology where one’s sense of self is so eroded by absorbing the pain of others that they see their own existence as a burden. there’s no social context, intent or purpose beyond the person’s skewed psychological state leading them toward self-annihilation.
this pathological state is necessary for trans-identified men to get what they want—so much so, that women now are pointing the finger at other women and accusing them of not having enough suicidal empathy (“why won’t you just be kind”).
Spot on, Brook. Men's heroism is, I think, too, a form of self-sacrifice that is grounded in actual events - reality. If I don't fight for my country, it will be overrun and my people could die.
With these female 'suicidal empathy' people, as you say, there is no context, and I can't accept that being 'suicidally empathetic' is a good evolutionary strategy. I think it is quite the opposite. Appeasement, too, is well known to have its downside. How many women have tried to appease rapists, domestic abusers and murderers? I bet all those raped, abused and killed did use appeasement and it failed.
We have tried to appease these men but they just keep on coming, keep on occupying our spaces, threatening and intimidating us - because we let them. Yes, we are right to be afraid of strong men who could injure or kill us which is why we need to fight now for the right to carry deterrents, and not just alarms, but pepper spray and even skin paint which cannot be removed easily. Imagine if those balaclava-clad threatening men at women's events were sprayed with skin paint and could be identified? Their mummies would be horrified. Not that they could not be identified now if face coverings were not permitted - which is also something for which we should be campaigning.
You put it well: it is a form of self-annihilation that is so unproductive and so reductive that the women who accuse other women of being 'unkind' are, on the face of it, the pioneers of female sex class destruction in the longer term. Any species, human or otherwise, or part species (women) who do not adapt to adverse stimuli will gradually cease to exist. Quite what the motivation for men is, is less evident because, to destroy half the human race will work only if that half is replaced by another half that fulfils the same biological functions.
That this is being pushed by Big Money, Big Tech, Big Pharma, companies specializing in AI and potential 'transhumanists' is no coincidence and these stupid women cannot distinguish between men who may be a bit misogynistic and/or sexist and those who wish to replace us entirely. Why do they wish to replace us? Because we hold life in our hands and always have done.
No man can be born except via a woman, and even cloning would produce females. It seems fantastic to even suggest such a thing, but many men want to be God, the apex of Godliness, of omnipotence, of omniscience, not just the wee gods they think they are now, enabled by many worshipping women. However, Mother Nature and Evolution are intrinsically female, as these men will find out the hard way, and anything that humans achieve is counter-balanced by things going horribly wrong.
Evolution favours sacrifice after reproduction, not before. The tragedy of 'gender-affirming care' is the eugenic sacrifice takes place before reproduction, and so the instinct to throw one's life away comes too early.
As for the link between self-sacrifice and war, that has become less clear since globalisation. What was the point of an American soldier going to Vietnam or Afghanistan, given the outcome? I think many of us are still ambivalent about that sacrifice.
Men fight wars largely because they have been convinced that women and children will be in danger if they do not. So yes, they do it for unselfish reasons - and to avoid being scorned by women if they do not.
Women's suffrage campaigners in Britain participated in 'white feather' campaigns, shaming men who had not volunteered to fight on behalf of the Belgians in 1914. In that case, the war wasn't even about their own women and children. Same again in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, which was not so related by blood to the English at the time.
They do, it's not empathy like we usually understand it, but a sense of responsibility and protection for the "poor country" and all those civilians in danger. There are other ideas at play, of course, like self-righteousness, ownership, rage, but at the core there is this odd sense of doing it for others (the tribe).
It is an interesting phenomenon, is it not, Nick/Daniel that, when vast numbers of men are killed in wars, women conceive many more males than females to balance the loss? However, when females are deliberately murdered by decree (China, India, etc.) and usually in the womb, they are not reproduced to the same level and those societies become unbalanced, and men start fighting each other and killing each other for access top females.
In the end, although those females surviving will be prized and fought over, the lack of balance would, in time, destroy the society because, although men produce much more sperm than is required, females can reproduce only up to a certain number and age. It is not hard to understand why we need a balance between the sexes, slightly in women's favour. That is what has always worked and brought us to the apex of the Earth's species. Interfering in that delicate balance is insanity.
According to the United Nations there are tens of millions of missing girls and women because of sex-selective customs including abortion and infanticide in Asia. That could be driving male migration out of these regions. But we're not allowed to think too much about that.
I'm suggesting it's a positive/negative spin on the same phenomenon. A suicide bomber thinks they are making a noble sacrifice. A young man gets killed after volunteering for a foreign war which is nothing to do with him, because he's been emotionally affected by reports of atrocities.
Women are basing their/our survival on appeasement, and the problem is that appeasement is effective. Using the trans movement as an example look at the way women who resist it are silenced by one side and stolen from/ ignored by the other side. Women derive social legitimacy and status, not just basic safety, from appeasement. I think the bigger problem is that women just straight up refuse to accept ourselves as a political class based on sex. As soon as we get close to that, some secondary distinction (eg race, class, “gender identity”) rises in competition, breaking any solidarity and driving political women back into male controlled political movements.
Women who defend trans ideology remind me of those mothers who think it's perfectly normal to ‘play’ with their baby boy's penis when he asks for it, while sternly interrupting their little girl when she masturbates by squeezing her thighs together and daydreaming. I think they have a problem with their own sexuality, as if it had remained more or less infantile, don't you think?
You were cool as a cucumber. Your interviewing skills meant you got her to say what she thinks. Watching her nonverbals was interesting. Although she has that Dolores Umbridge 'soft' voice, she was chewing her own mouth and her hand movements were more animated as time went on. As for 'evil'. I worked with someone with a personality disorder and I really recognise that feeling. I wish I knew how this came over to the Man on the Clapham Omnibus - because although we are all well versed in the arguments, and she filled the bingo card, I have discovered there are way more people who just accept the neo-religious belief that some men are women than I could ever have predicted. Where I think she really showed herself up was obfuscating about stereotypes. She knows full well what it is small children are expressing when they say they feel like/are/want to be to opposite sex - it's a rejection of stereotypical notions of femininity or masculinity but she went all vague about it being 'which queue they want to line up in at school'. Her sexism towards other women - well I am used to that from some women. What is unforgivable is her apparent total ignorance about child development, child psychology, safeguarding, psychiatry and medical ethics. That is extraordinary. For a GP
I note general practitioners study medicine, rather than psychology, and are not required to study gender at all. If she'd qualified as a psychiatrist, she wouldn't be hawking off-label drugs on the Internet; she'd be working in an NHS gender clinic.
Noted! But they have done 'modules' in the above ; ). And led her description of herself to Julie Bindel with 'mother'. Her insight is well below-average.
Julie, you were clear and calm, and you had strong arguments which you made well. Hearing Webberly's responses was so frustrating. She had no argument to counter the reasons why trans identified men must be excluded from women's single sex spaces so she resorted to bad-faith tactics to try to discredit your arguments and evidence. The way she pretended not to understand your 'not all men' was particularly disingenuous, but also should have been noticeable to most listeners, as she did it repeatedly.
Webberly's disputing statistics on rape and domestic violence was shocking, and surprising.
You certainly came out on top in the closing statements, with a clear, rational argument. Webberly's was just fluff - magic fairy dust! and ironic that her statement concerned a single individual after castigating you throughout the debate for citing particular people as evidence.
I also watched this and I'm now listening to the Lesbian Podcast to cleanse my psyche! The difference between us, Julie, though we are both lesbian women from the north east of England, and share most of our political opinions, is that , though I'm a woman who abhors violence in all its forms, I would've found it incredibly difficult to sit across a medium sized table and not reach across to slap the self congratulatory smile off this totally psychotic grifter. I wondered why she'd suddenly reappeared after a long time in the boon docks, so hearing you say that she's launching Gender GP in the States, makes perfect sense. Grifter.
She’s an utter disgrace to womanhood in fact by her own admission wants to rid the sex class and make us all one. She is complete bonkers and to say that trans people were killed during the holocaust is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever heard. She’s disgusting and rejects biological sex. I pity any females that go to her for medical advice she needs to be struck off.
Thank you, Julie, for taking on the challenge and engaging in a head‑to‑head discussion with this individual. She is indeed malevolent, and her crusade is unequivocally anti‑women. She shows not the slightest regard for the safety of women and girls.
Webberley was a shocker. It was sickening to watch her throwing insults and repeated denial of facts. You’d fill a thousand pages if you listed all of the deceit and lies she came out with. How on earth did society let this malevolent creature gain so much influence and power?
Just coming to the end of watching the Webberly debate on my partner J's phone.
The bad faith shown by Webberly is something else. Her misrepresentation of your points was bloody awful…. Anyway she's gonna need industrial amounts of Gorilla glue to piece her “argument” together after you left it in shards on the studio floor. Good stuff Julie.
Well done Julie. I admire your ability to stay cool - well on the outside at least - while getting across the many important points.l I am also a feminist who worked in sexual assault resource centres - and men’s and women’s prisons for years. I get you. I get you. I get you. What I also think,I get about the ‘good doctor listening to her with both you and with the sane Helen is that for whatever mad reasons she has, she is never going to move from two inter-twined positions 1. Trans women - so called - are actually women and 2. Children can be ‘born in the wrong body’ and so are deserving of the services that flow from this (insane) notion. But, as you say, just because there will NEVER be a common meeting ground doesn’t mean we give up trying. My PhD thesis in women’s studies (I think that have all been superseded now by Gender Studies courses) - was on the process throughout childhood of the extent to which children absorbed and conformed to the gender stereotypes that surrounded them every day growing up. But this was back in the good old days of 1990 when everyone knew the difference between sex and gender. And when feminists were determined to not let gender stereotypes constrict life choices of girls (and boys). I implore you to keep up the good fight.
Thank you for facing this ghoul head on. That evil (and malevolence that HJ refers to) comes across in spades during both interviews. How you sat opposite her and kept your temper is testimony to your professionalism. You and HJ each took one for the team here. We’re damn lucky to have you amazing women.
Agreed. This level of self-sacrifice deserves recognition.
https://substack.com/@kalikarma1/note/c-187394710?r=6oi3ss
You made your very important points admirably Julie- with control, precision, knowledge of the facts, and didn’t allow yourself to be bullied or manipulated by Webberly who came across as deluded (obviously) but also juvenile, sarcastic, and completely without merit- not able to answer even the fundamental questions that you put to her. You may have felt depressed by the end but you were brilliant.
Thank you for taking the psychic (and physical) body blows, Julie. Thank you for speaking for so many of us, but especially for women and girls and all children who continue to be harmed by Webberly and her kind. She clearly trained extensively with her nonbinary "team" for both interviews: bullying, smearing, sneering, and deflecting tactics at every turn. It was sickening to listen to her. You, however, did not need a team, nor did Helen Joyce. You did not need to train for the debate because you have truth on your side and sword-sharp clarity in your mind. As far as being "in the presence of evil," I can only think that when a human being becomes little more than a shell for profit and its oppressive ideology, what is left is a dark void emitting a noxious and psychic tar to anyone who encounters such a person. Thank you again.
I was also thinking the same thing. When you have the facts and evidence on your side the truth will be revealed. I would like to say ‘easily’ but I suspect this was emotionally incredibly draining for Julie and her ability to stay calm is simply magnificent.
I found the experience of listening to that woman extremely disturbing, counter logical and utterly lacking in intelligent and critical thinking. She tried to turn everything you said into a denial and to make you appear to be making up stuff that she had said - which she had, in fact, said. She constantly tried to wrong foot you. How you kept your cool, I do not know.
I'm afraid I had to give up on listening before the end as she so enraged me, but she also terrified me, so relentless was she in proclaiming this massive harm to innocent children as if she was Mother Teresa. Not sure if she is a true psychopath, but she is something very close: sadistic and self-congratulatory; unheeding of the harms of this 'gender medicine' in the pursuit of personal gain ; and completely lacking in any form of self-awareness or remorse. Yes, 'evil' probably is the right word. She is not the only one.
Although I believe firmly that men are behind this ideology and movement for sexual kicks, control and money, mainly, so many, many women are their enablers that they make me sick to the pit of my stomach that they are the same sex as I am. Stay strong, Julie, and please try to create a united front with other women fighting this stuff, even if you don't agree with every aspect of their approach. We should be calling a spade a shovel at this stage, and this is where we went wrong in the beginning: we gave them an inch and they took a mile.
Well said
There are many, many woman (including lots of mothers) involved in pushing and promoting this evil agenda. To believe that is mostly man is dangerous and ignorant.
Oh, I know that there are many females involved, Sonia. I despise them. I have never denied that fact. This ideology, however, is male, as queer theory is male, and was long before Judith Butler. I do not, however, like you, make the mistake of thinking that women are at the sharp end of this. All the Big Tech, Big Pharmaceutical, AI, etc. industries are owned by MEN. They are the ones who have bankrolled this stuff.
I have never underestimated my own sex's penchant for being sublimely stupid in the face of male demands and entitlement. The original foot soldiers of this movement were sexual fetishists and paraphiliacs - male - but they had to find a way round the fact that everyone knew yesterday that this was all rooted in sexual feelz and pornography, and what better way than to claim that that they had been born in the wrong body and knew that since they were toddlers?
That prompted many silly/deranged women to feel sorry for them and to sacrifice their children (and also because it made them feel good, too - a kind of sexual virtue-signalling obeisance). Oh, no, Sonia, I don't believe it is all men, far from it, but it is all men at the helm, as per. No woman that I have ever heard of has led a movement that is inimical to human survival. Many men have and still do. Open your eyes.
Thank you Lorna, for your answer. I said what I said because in US at least in most cases is the mom that starts her child on GAC meds 😢 But I dounderstand at the helm of this ideology is man, perverted, sick pedofiles
Thanks so much Julie for this clear account. Because the notion of ‘evil’ in our culture has religious roots, it is difficult even for secularists to resist reaching for the word. Sadism is shot through gender ideology like Blackpool rock. Look at WPATH Soc 8 and the contorted logic of turning castration into a blow for social justice. It was insinuated there by sadistic paedophiles. Your campaigning is spot on Thanks
I saw it and you were a freaking saint. Plus you just let her run her mouth, gave her enough rope and away she went. How in the world is she a doctor? She has no grasp of rational thinking that you’d think would be necessary for getting through medical school. Or is she just from a posh home? I wonder what she was like at medical school? She seems not the full quid.
Her licence to practice was revoked by the GMC in 2024 (as was her husband’s!). Her UK clinic was also fined. Disgraceful that she is still “Dr”
How is she still known as Dr if that's the case?! It's crazy! If you saw the debate with Helen Joyce, Webberley repeatedly put Helen down for not being a Dr! It was another very painful watch 😒
We are so blessed to have such amazingly, strong and knowledgeable Women like Julie B & Helen (Joyce) & Sex Matters on this subject.
i was wondering this too. if she lost her license why does she still get to keep saying she's a doctor?
I know, and disappointingly the interviewer didn't challenge her on it. Fact is this 'crazy' was suspended by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MTPTS) prior to, and after a fitness to practise hearing in 2022. But the 'misconduct ruling' relating to the treatment of 3 so called 'trans children', and that was unbelievably overturned at the High Court in 2023. Regardless of this, Webberley still had her licence to practise in the UK withdrawn by medical authorities. That she thinks children can decide upon 'treatments' which irreversibly alter & damage their bodies & development, but the esteemed Helen Joyce has no qualification to question a struckoff Doctor beggars belief!
Just checked it out, and incredibly, Helen Webberley is still 'registered' as a doctor despite losing her 'license to practise'. That she can even use the title of Dr after her conduct is appalling.
She can call herself a Doctor (despite her license being removed) as a MBBS or MBBCh is at the doctorate level. One can be a Doctor of Anything.
How has she not been locked up if they’re doctors practicing without a licence?
Her company is now registered in Singapore I think? Presumably beyond the reach of UK/GMC regulation
Well done Julie. The interview was a very hard watch and extremely rage inducing so you did extremely well to stay so calm, rational and evidence focused.
Webberley comparing trans women to black or disabled women was utterly shocking. Her denial of the appalling and rising epidemic of violence and abuse perpetrated against women and children and men was quite frankly disgusting. Shame on her.
I was wondering why she is participating in these interviews. I suspect a grift for money is driving it. I can understand why you questioned giving this lunatic any air time but ultimately I think the world needs to see the madness that has been going on and the damage to children and families.
I think you did really well in exposing her manipulative, narcissistic behaviour for all to see. I haven’t watched Helen’s interview yet because I’m still recovering from yours!
I didn’t believe evil existed until I went on Reddit. Hearing Webberley speak has confirmed it.
Yes I thought that to regarding her denial of rape stats, what planet is she on!
Absolutely staggering!! Yes men can be raped and obviously it’s appalling but her denial about the seriousness of what women have and continue to face was beyond belief.
Julie made a very clear and good point that we don’t believe all men are rapists just because we exclude them from women only spaces and services. I don’t know if Webberley was wilfully misunderstanding or if she is just thick!
i used to spend way too much time on reddit. now all i can see it as is a scourge of delusional people. they’re all so sick with the way they espouse this ideology and how smug and sure of themselves they are when they threaten real women with violence when we express concerns for our safety. there’s truly no getting through to them, and it’s very saddening. it’s like a mass psychosis. i’m on there less and less because it just enrages and devastates me.
It’s a truly horrible place. I left after getting a life time ban for calling Imane Khelife a bloke and referring to a convicted male pervert as he! It’s full of angry, nasty men.
Me too - I suggested we should not be sterilizing children and got banned. Reddit is a complete horror show.
i’ve heard that a lot of the mods on those main subs are mentally ill trans identified males too so it makes sense. they have way too much power and really enjoy flexing it, probably because they don’t have an actual job and want to hurt others with any little bit of power they can have. if they can ban people, then they can make it so that no one is allowed to challenge their delusions. and fuck imane khelif! disgusting, fetishistic woman beater. everyone involved in the olympics and all of his supporters should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they won’t be.
I wonder whatever became of the ghastly 'Aimee' Challenor, former Green and LibDem politician, who later became a Reddit mod?
Julie, I love you! You are a warrior! Thank you very much ❤️
you’ve perfectly described how i feel after a debate or even a civil disagreement (despite 8 yrs of phil to become a competant debater, i much prefer collaboration).
the reason why it feels bad is b/c groupthink was an adaptive strategy when we lived more primitively. our bodies register disagreement as danger. Webberly exploits this vestigial trait to herd us into profitable (for her), maladaptive (for everyone else) and suicidal behaviors.
so, THANK YOU for helping evolve the species while also saving lives ❤️🩹 you’re showing us how it’s done!
What so many females appear to have is 'suicidal empathy' which can only be bad for all women as a sex class. This may well have its roots in survival strategy, but, as any evolutionist would attest, when you continue to behave in ways that undermine your group, you endanger yourself and the whole group (women and girls) in such a way that you could halt the group's evolutionary journey by taking it back to extreme male domination and sexual exploitation or, worse, to destroy it as a group (sex class, in this instance).
If Ira Levin's 'Stepford Wives' becomes reality (female robotic entities that look just like women and can service men just like women, and, of course, can hatch babies through artificial means) then this 'suicidal empathy' is guaranteed to hasten the extinction of the female half of the species. I might be paranoid, but I'm half-way to thinking that this is precisely what this is all about, in reality: transhumanism. Behind it are men, all men, in the tech and AI industries.
interesting how suicidal empathy rarely (never) interferes with men’s self-interest, or corporate self-interest.
I don't think that's the case. Think of all the men who volunteer to fight and die in wars, often on behalf of people they've never met, or those who carry out dangerous jobs and rescue missions. Sabrina Spielrein characterised the death-drive (thanatos) as an essential part of the reproductive cycle, ensuring that one generation gives way to the next.
it’s a fair question.
Warriors and First Responders are socially valued b/c their sacrifice fits into a social contract that (supposedly) protects society as a whole. their sacrifice is termed Valor and Heroism. the act of throwing oneself on a grenade has context, intent and perceived purpose.
contrast that with "suicidal empathy" which is a pathological psychology where one’s sense of self is so eroded by absorbing the pain of others that they see their own existence as a burden. there’s no social context, intent or purpose beyond the person’s skewed psychological state leading them toward self-annihilation.
this pathological state is necessary for trans-identified men to get what they want—so much so, that women now are pointing the finger at other women and accusing them of not having enough suicidal empathy (“why won’t you just be kind”).
Spot on, Brook. Men's heroism is, I think, too, a form of self-sacrifice that is grounded in actual events - reality. If I don't fight for my country, it will be overrun and my people could die.
With these female 'suicidal empathy' people, as you say, there is no context, and I can't accept that being 'suicidally empathetic' is a good evolutionary strategy. I think it is quite the opposite. Appeasement, too, is well known to have its downside. How many women have tried to appease rapists, domestic abusers and murderers? I bet all those raped, abused and killed did use appeasement and it failed.
We have tried to appease these men but they just keep on coming, keep on occupying our spaces, threatening and intimidating us - because we let them. Yes, we are right to be afraid of strong men who could injure or kill us which is why we need to fight now for the right to carry deterrents, and not just alarms, but pepper spray and even skin paint which cannot be removed easily. Imagine if those balaclava-clad threatening men at women's events were sprayed with skin paint and could be identified? Their mummies would be horrified. Not that they could not be identified now if face coverings were not permitted - which is also something for which we should be campaigning.
You put it well: it is a form of self-annihilation that is so unproductive and so reductive that the women who accuse other women of being 'unkind' are, on the face of it, the pioneers of female sex class destruction in the longer term. Any species, human or otherwise, or part species (women) who do not adapt to adverse stimuli will gradually cease to exist. Quite what the motivation for men is, is less evident because, to destroy half the human race will work only if that half is replaced by another half that fulfils the same biological functions.
That this is being pushed by Big Money, Big Tech, Big Pharma, companies specializing in AI and potential 'transhumanists' is no coincidence and these stupid women cannot distinguish between men who may be a bit misogynistic and/or sexist and those who wish to replace us entirely. Why do they wish to replace us? Because we hold life in our hands and always have done.
No man can be born except via a woman, and even cloning would produce females. It seems fantastic to even suggest such a thing, but many men want to be God, the apex of Godliness, of omnipotence, of omniscience, not just the wee gods they think they are now, enabled by many worshipping women. However, Mother Nature and Evolution are intrinsically female, as these men will find out the hard way, and anything that humans achieve is counter-balanced by things going horribly wrong.
Evolution favours sacrifice after reproduction, not before. The tragedy of 'gender-affirming care' is the eugenic sacrifice takes place before reproduction, and so the instinct to throw one's life away comes too early.
As for the link between self-sacrifice and war, that has become less clear since globalisation. What was the point of an American soldier going to Vietnam or Afghanistan, given the outcome? I think many of us are still ambivalent about that sacrifice.
Good points.
Men do not fight wars out of empathy ffs
Men fight wars largely because they have been convinced that women and children will be in danger if they do not. So yes, they do it for unselfish reasons - and to avoid being scorned by women if they do not.
Women's suffrage campaigners in Britain participated in 'white feather' campaigns, shaming men who had not volunteered to fight on behalf of the Belgians in 1914. In that case, the war wasn't even about their own women and children. Same again in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, which was not so related by blood to the English at the time.
How would you know that? Have you been to war?
They do, it's not empathy like we usually understand it, but a sense of responsibility and protection for the "poor country" and all those civilians in danger. There are other ideas at play, of course, like self-righteousness, ownership, rage, but at the core there is this odd sense of doing it for others (the tribe).
https://substack.com/@kalikarma1/note/c-187394710?r=6oi3ss
🖕🏼Whore
Because men aren't suicidally empathetic. They correctly see it as a weakness.
How would you explain why men frequently sacrifice themselves to save others, for family, for nation or for a cause?
It is an interesting phenomenon, is it not, Nick/Daniel that, when vast numbers of men are killed in wars, women conceive many more males than females to balance the loss? However, when females are deliberately murdered by decree (China, India, etc.) and usually in the womb, they are not reproduced to the same level and those societies become unbalanced, and men start fighting each other and killing each other for access top females.
In the end, although those females surviving will be prized and fought over, the lack of balance would, in time, destroy the society because, although men produce much more sperm than is required, females can reproduce only up to a certain number and age. It is not hard to understand why we need a balance between the sexes, slightly in women's favour. That is what has always worked and brought us to the apex of the Earth's species. Interfering in that delicate balance is insanity.
According to the United Nations there are tens of millions of missing girls and women because of sex-selective customs including abortion and infanticide in Asia. That could be driving male migration out of these regions. But we're not allowed to think too much about that.
That's sacrifice. Not suicidal empathy. Do you really not understand the difference?
I'm suggesting it's a positive/negative spin on the same phenomenon. A suicide bomber thinks they are making a noble sacrifice. A young man gets killed after volunteering for a foreign war which is nothing to do with him, because he's been emotionally affected by reports of atrocities.
Women are basing their/our survival on appeasement, and the problem is that appeasement is effective. Using the trans movement as an example look at the way women who resist it are silenced by one side and stolen from/ ignored by the other side. Women derive social legitimacy and status, not just basic safety, from appeasement. I think the bigger problem is that women just straight up refuse to accept ourselves as a political class based on sex. As soon as we get close to that, some secondary distinction (eg race, class, “gender identity”) rises in competition, breaking any solidarity and driving political women back into male controlled political movements.
Read Jennifer Bilek. She spells it out clearly.
Women who defend trans ideology remind me of those mothers who think it's perfectly normal to ‘play’ with their baby boy's penis when he asks for it, while sternly interrupting their little girl when she masturbates by squeezing her thighs together and daydreaming. I think they have a problem with their own sexuality, as if it had remained more or less infantile, don't you think?
You were cool as a cucumber. Your interviewing skills meant you got her to say what she thinks. Watching her nonverbals was interesting. Although she has that Dolores Umbridge 'soft' voice, she was chewing her own mouth and her hand movements were more animated as time went on. As for 'evil'. I worked with someone with a personality disorder and I really recognise that feeling. I wish I knew how this came over to the Man on the Clapham Omnibus - because although we are all well versed in the arguments, and she filled the bingo card, I have discovered there are way more people who just accept the neo-religious belief that some men are women than I could ever have predicted. Where I think she really showed herself up was obfuscating about stereotypes. She knows full well what it is small children are expressing when they say they feel like/are/want to be to opposite sex - it's a rejection of stereotypical notions of femininity or masculinity but she went all vague about it being 'which queue they want to line up in at school'. Her sexism towards other women - well I am used to that from some women. What is unforgivable is her apparent total ignorance about child development, child psychology, safeguarding, psychiatry and medical ethics. That is extraordinary. For a GP
I note general practitioners study medicine, rather than psychology, and are not required to study gender at all. If she'd qualified as a psychiatrist, she wouldn't be hawking off-label drugs on the Internet; she'd be working in an NHS gender clinic.
Noted! But they have done 'modules' in the above ; ). And led her description of herself to Julie Bindel with 'mother'. Her insight is well below-average.
Julie, you were clear and calm, and you had strong arguments which you made well. Hearing Webberly's responses was so frustrating. She had no argument to counter the reasons why trans identified men must be excluded from women's single sex spaces so she resorted to bad-faith tactics to try to discredit your arguments and evidence. The way she pretended not to understand your 'not all men' was particularly disingenuous, but also should have been noticeable to most listeners, as she did it repeatedly.
Webberly's disputing statistics on rape and domestic violence was shocking, and surprising.
You certainly came out on top in the closing statements, with a clear, rational argument. Webberly's was just fluff - magic fairy dust! and ironic that her statement concerned a single individual after castigating you throughout the debate for citing particular people as evidence.
I also watched this and I'm now listening to the Lesbian Podcast to cleanse my psyche! The difference between us, Julie, though we are both lesbian women from the north east of England, and share most of our political opinions, is that , though I'm a woman who abhors violence in all its forms, I would've found it incredibly difficult to sit across a medium sized table and not reach across to slap the self congratulatory smile off this totally psychotic grifter. I wondered why she'd suddenly reappeared after a long time in the boon docks, so hearing you say that she's launching Gender GP in the States, makes perfect sense. Grifter.
She’s an utter disgrace to womanhood in fact by her own admission wants to rid the sex class and make us all one. She is complete bonkers and to say that trans people were killed during the holocaust is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever heard. She’s disgusting and rejects biological sex. I pity any females that go to her for medical advice she needs to be struck off.
Thank you, Julie, for taking on the challenge and engaging in a head‑to‑head discussion with this individual. She is indeed malevolent, and her crusade is unequivocally anti‑women. She shows not the slightest regard for the safety of women and girls.
Webberley was a shocker. It was sickening to watch her throwing insults and repeated denial of facts. You’d fill a thousand pages if you listed all of the deceit and lies she came out with. How on earth did society let this malevolent creature gain so much influence and power?
Just coming to the end of watching the Webberly debate on my partner J's phone.
The bad faith shown by Webberly is something else. Her misrepresentation of your points was bloody awful…. Anyway she's gonna need industrial amounts of Gorilla glue to piece her “argument” together after you left it in shards on the studio floor. Good stuff Julie.
Well done Julie. I admire your ability to stay cool - well on the outside at least - while getting across the many important points.l I am also a feminist who worked in sexual assault resource centres - and men’s and women’s prisons for years. I get you. I get you. I get you. What I also think,I get about the ‘good doctor listening to her with both you and with the sane Helen is that for whatever mad reasons she has, she is never going to move from two inter-twined positions 1. Trans women - so called - are actually women and 2. Children can be ‘born in the wrong body’ and so are deserving of the services that flow from this (insane) notion. But, as you say, just because there will NEVER be a common meeting ground doesn’t mean we give up trying. My PhD thesis in women’s studies (I think that have all been superseded now by Gender Studies courses) - was on the process throughout childhood of the extent to which children absorbed and conformed to the gender stereotypes that surrounded them every day growing up. But this was back in the good old days of 1990 when everyone knew the difference between sex and gender. And when feminists were determined to not let gender stereotypes constrict life choices of girls (and boys). I implore you to keep up the good fight.