The War for Reality | Helen Joyce | EP 379

Hello everyone. We're facing a bit of a conundrum here at Daily Wire. I have a couple of interviews. The one I'm talking about right now is with Helen Joyce that we believe will be taken down by YouTube. So, we don't know exactly what to do about that.

What we've decided to do is to edit the portions we believe would be objectionable to whoever is acting behind the scenes at YouTube and to make those available in their extended and unedited versions on Twitter and on The Daily Wire Plus platform and Spotify. We don't know if this is the right solution. Um, you know, there's part of me that wants to just say to hell with it and post it anyways on YouTube. There’s another part that makes me not want to post it on YouTube at all. But this is our solution, and so I hope that you feel that that's acceptable.

If you want to watch the video as usual on YouTube, please feel inclined to do so; feel welcome to do so, knowing what I just told you. Otherwise, head over to these other sites, Spotify, Daily Wire Plus, Apple, etc., to watch and listen there. I don't think women's desire to keep men out of private spaces has anything in common with white people's desire under Jim Crow to keep black people out. Safety, it's privacy, it's dignity. But I mean, they will make these arguments explicitly; they will literally compare you to racists.

[Music]

Hello everyone watching and listening. Today, I'm speaking once again to author, journalist, and biological women's rights advocate Helen Joyce. We discuss the much delayed censorship of our last interview on this channel, our joint efforts at resisting the ideology that motivates such silencing, the genuine UK tradition of natural rights, and the harsh reality of what women and men both stand to lose on the tyranny and falsehood front today. We do more than touch on the great adventure of the truth.

Well, it's good to see you again, and, um, it's interesting that we get to talk here once again for whatever the hell good that's going to do, just after YouTube pulled our last discussion, which was actually quite shocking to me. Eh, because YouTube has left me alone until now. But they've taken down three of my podcasts in the last month: Matt Walsh on the trans front because I talked to him about "What is a woman?" Uh, Robert F. Kennedy, which actually shocked the hell out of me because he's running an active presidential campaign. And then they took down my conversation with you, and you know, you're a completely reprehensible—you know, you were just an economist, journalist for years, and that is hardly anything respectable about that.

So, if this is the situation we're in, it's a pretty bloody sorry state of affairs, that's for sure. Under what circumstances do you think that same-sex gatherings, let's say, should be permitted or required? Because this is actually a very tricky issue, right? My wife and I have talked about this a lot, and she's actually a little harsher on this front than me. She thinks that women invaded men's spaces so badly that this is part of the backlash.

But underneath that, there's a real complexity, right? Because I might say, well, is it okay for rich men in London to have a men’s only private club? Because that's a good question, right? That's a border issue here, and it begs a more sophisticated question bearing on what you described, which is all right when is it necessary for the sexes to have their own spaces? And what are your thoughts about that? Like, where should we draw the line? Because part of this argument culture war is about where we draw the eternal line.

Bathrooms seem at least until recently as what—what an unquestionable bastion of same-sex privacy, but we've obviously blown way past that and made it almost mandatory for that to disappear. Change rooms as well, yeah. So, where do we draw the line as far as you're concerned? I mean, when—when should the sexes have their own space?

So, freedom of association is an important right. If people want single-sex spaces, like if somebody wants to set up a man-only book group or a woman-only book group, I don't think they should have to explain themselves. I can see the issue with, you know, dining clubs and so on, where a lot of politics happens and where a lot of power play happens, and so on. If you keep women out of those spaces or you were to keep black people out of those spaces, you would be hoarding power.

I genuinely think that's a difficult question in law because it's hard to say of one space, you know, "That's where the backroom brokering happens," and of another space, "Well, you know, that's harmless. That's just people who have interests in common." And then when it comes to spaces like toilets, I mean, it's amazing how fast people forget things. But when women started to do factory work during the Industrial Revolution, there were no single-sex toilets.

So, women had to use the same facilities that men did, which were not exactly sanitary or nice or private. And those became spaces for women who experienced a lot of violence—a lot of sexual violence. So, women factory girls would go to the toilet in groups and protect each other and watch each other or indeed go out on the street and just rely on the fact that they had big skirts. So that's why women go to the toilet in groups, of course, that's why. Because why? Because it's indecent one.

But indecent—uh, separate toilets—let's not, you just go to gossip. But yeah, women would not drink water during the day so they didn't have to go to the toilet. Um, so there was actually a decades-long fight to get women's toilets and women's facilities. And in most countries, labor laws will still say that you must have women's toilets in workplaces where there are women.

And then in sport, it's obvious why you separate the sexes, but actually, you can separate the sexes a little bit differently in sports. You can do it as female-only and open because if a woman is, you know, unusually large or strong or something and she can compete maybe at the lower ranks of the men's divisions, why shouldn't she? It's not a problem for anyone. So, you just—you close, you protect one category. It's the same as, you know, it's a problem for men.

I remember when I was a kid, there was this girl who fell into the category that you just described. You know, she was—uh, she was a pretty husky tough farm girl and she was genuinely tough. Like, there were definitely boys that were afraid of her, and I would say that was all boys. And there was a reason for that. The first was, well, she was actually pretty tough, and so if you were playing shinny hockey on the street and she gave you a check, you—you pretty much noticed.

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

Like, that's number one rule of good men, right? And under any circumstances whatsoever, at the cost of your reputation. And so, in anything in anything that's got physical violence involved in it of any sort, and that would—I’d include rugby, say, or American football, and that you count of the sexes compete because it's not just about strength; it's about things like the way the neck is made—the thickness of the skull. You know, when women are really not evolved to protect themselves against punches the same way that men are.

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

And the thing is, the boys then did complain. This is a good long time ago. They complained because my sisters were so good, and indeed the girls were taken off. But I mean, this is cricket. There's no genuine complaint there; it’s just not wanting to lose. So I think, you know, you can conceptualize it in like 90 something percent of the cases that the female category is like the under 18 category. A 17-year-old is allowed to compete as an adult; a 19-year-old is not allowed to compete, right?

Right, yeah. Well, it seems like a tentative solution, at least on the freedom of association front. So, what if I said something, you know, rather radical like, "Well, let the bigoted halfwits hang out with whoever the hell they want." And so if people want to set up a man's only corporation, for example, well, have at her. I mean, you've just cut yourself off from 50 percent of the talent pool, which probably isn't the wisest move in the world. And maybe even if you want to do that with prejudice in mind on the racial front, you should be allowed to do that too in the hopes that such behavior would be immediately revealed as self-defeating and eradicate itself from the public comments.

Because the alternative – that's the freedom of association argument in some sense, right? You get to hang around with whoever you want, and the ultimate expression of that, by the way, is sexual congress. Right? Because the most discriminating form of behavior that any of us ever indulge in is on the sexual front where we discriminate madly on every ground you can possibly imagine constantly and in principle to our own advantage with no care whatsoever for the disadvantaged and oppressed, right? And we regard that as a cardinal right. I don't have to sleep with anyone I don't want to or don't want to.

It isn't even need, you know, when Huxley's "Brave New World," that went by the wayside and it was a sign of immorality to say no to anyone who asked you who offered a sexual invitation. Oh, well, we're heading that direction. I mean, there's even a book called "The Right to Sex." I mean, there are arguments now about how say an ugly, or a fat, or a disabled or an elderly or a poor man, you know, he's not going to get anyone to sleep with without paying, so we have to have prostitutes for those men. And well, what if he's poor? Well then the state has to pay for them.

I mean, these arguments are seriously being made in some corners of academia and it's easy to brush them off because it's corners of academia. But we have seen what happens when you take casually. I think that we're crazy. Women should just be required to make themselves available at a moment's notice to everyone who is the least bit of interest.

Yeah, it's the end. I think the partial answer to what you're asking might be to think along the lines of Adam Smith, who had saw two different spheres. And, um, in "The Wealth of Nations," he talked about the invisible hand which governs the market. But then he also talked about theory of moral sentiments, which was the realms where the market didn't go. And at the time that was larger than now because it included the formation of families.

And now, with dating apps, you can apply economic arguments to how people make decisions on dating apps. Like, it's a lot more marketized than it was. But there is a realm where the market does not go, and traditionally we have thought that everything that happens behind your front door is that right? Yeah, but—but also with care.

Like, the reason that a child cares for their aging parents isn't because the parents cared for them when they were small; it's not a market exchange. But of course, the market is coming in there. It's coming into child care; it's coming into elderly care. Um, and as soon as you do that, the government has opinions about how it's done. Like if the government is providing any of the care while the taxpayer has opinions on whether you're a good enough carer or not.

So, I think we're in a state of flux where we're marketizing a bunch of things that used to live in the theory of moral sentiments realm, and—and that is part of what we are seeing happening. And I think it's part of the answer to your question: you know, if something is freedom of association, it's in a non-marketized part. But if what you're talking about is, uh, say how an entirely government-funded operation like the BBC hires, I think that's in the public domain.

And that might be somewhere that you would have rules that say this isn't about freedom of association; this is about transparency. That you were, you know, doing things in a fair and open way; you're advertising all your jobs… you know, that sort of thing. But inside your house, and certainly inside the bedroom, and when it comes to care, those aren't the rules that we play.

Yeah, well, the market exchange… the market—it’s direct market exchange arguments, and interesting ones. So if there's if there's direct exchange of money for service, let's say, or goods, then yeah, then, uh, then there’s the standard non-prejudicial rules should apply. And otherwise it's in the private domain and you can go to hell in a handbasket in whatever manner you choose.

But the example that you give of, you know, rich men, you know, having a club that's only for rich men when we all know who that is, where the next candidates are going to be chosen for election, and it is where, uh, you know, quiet words will be had about schools to be the next governor general of the BBC or whatever, like that's the genuinely difficulty—the edge case is that is that theory of moral sentiments or is that wealth of nations?

And I don't have a strong—I don't have a guiding principle to say where exactly that borderline is, just to say that those are difficult questions. But the question of whether you want to undress in front of somebody is not difficult in the same way. Like, women do not have single-sex changing rooms in order that we stitch up the world inside that changing room behind that closed door—that is not why we have it. We have it because nearly all I know you're inspiring away behind those doors.

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

It's safety, it's privacy, it's dignity. But I mean, they will make these arguments explicitly; they will literally compare you to racists. So I think—I mean, the obvious ones for women are privacy, safety, dignity, um, consent—like we used to think that consent was a thing. I thought we thought that until about a half a second ago.

And a woman who says, you know, I only consent to having, say, a hysteroscopy, which is an operation that does require you to undress from the waist down and does require, you know, more than one person sticking things up you, and it's, you know, pretty undignified and painful. A woman who says I will only undergo this with other women is making a statement about her bodily autonomy and integrity.

So it's amazing to me that that man is—oh, that'll definitely get us kicked off YouTube—now you've gone and done it. Yeah, well, I think you're just going to have to put your videos up somewhere else now, aren't you? It's so that other people—yeah, you can just don't even go there. It's the same with JK Rowling. Like, you know, she's big enough to defend herself and she has done brilliantly.

Yeah, yeah, so no, I think she—I think she will really be able to do it because she has—she’s like the Beatles, equivalent of bigger than God. You know like she is—the author. But even if we just look at the verbal thing, what they're doing is they're making it so incredibly painful and difficult for her and taking up all her time that anybody who is not of the JK Rowling level thinks it's to make everybody else think this—you know just don't go there.

Like I said, I’m always here. I always hear people saying like you’re very brave to do what you do, I couldn’t do it. And, well, I can see why. We are just days away from the Durbin Accords, the greatest threat to the US Dollar’s global dominance in the past 80 years. On August 22nd, BRIC nations Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are expected to announce the launch of a new international super currency, fully backed by gold or other commodities. You can protect your IRA or 401K from the fallout of this landmark announcement by diversifying with gold from Birch Gold. Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which is right now. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the Dollar have? Protect your savings with gold.

Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. Text Jordan to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold. Again, text Jordan to 989898.

Yeah, well, okay. But let's tell—they're doing the same thing to me on the Canadian front, by the way, with regards to the College of Psychologists. Because the College of Physicians weighed in on the side of the College of Psychologists this week, trying to insist that they have the same ability to regulate their physicians. All of whom are terrified to open their mouth about anything contentious.

Now, by the way, because I've talked to dozens of them hoping they can make of me an object lesson, which luckily isn't going to be as easy as they first hoped it would be. They've been threatening to take me in front of a disciplinary board for months. And according to their own idiot regulations, we're supposed to do that in 150 days—and so far they've shied away from that opportunity because they actually make those public, and I'll put that on my damn YouTube channel in a second so we can see who's on the wrong side—the men, the Joseph Mengele side of history, let's say.

You'd think the bloody Democrats in the U.S. would wake up to that, but they're not known for their consciousness, so we'll see how that plays out. Yeah, so hey, so what's it like being Helen Joyce at the moment?

You know, you—you well, there’s a couple of things. First of all, you know you said you understand why people remain silent, but you don't. So like, you know, I'm getting increasingly tired of being sympathetic to people who remain silent when they have something to say. Like I do understand it; I've met 200 people who've had their lives flipped upside down by being canceled. It's not pleasant. But inviting the woke mob to dominate the world, that's not all that pleasant either.

So it looks like a choice between various forms of hell. Now, you wrote this book, so tell me what’s—we haven't talked for like a year and a half, something like that. What's it been like for you to have published that book, and what's life like for you in the practical sense at the moment? So, I mean, I'm having a ball. Um, I think that the big difference—the big question on this, whether people are having—are living a nightmare or actually enjoying themselves, it's not so much about whether they've been canceled.

Because you will be, you will be like, it's just going to be, um, you know, they go after you. It's whether it's inside your house or not. So there are quite a lot of women who—or—and also men, by the way—who talk to me who are living absolute nightmares because of things that are happening to their children in particular, or women whose husbands have transitioned and who have, you know, spent all the family money and gone through these weird surgeries and now say their wives are lesbians.

And if the wife doesn’t think of herself as a lesbian, you know, she’s a bigot. And so people go through these horrific, horrific nightmares, and those people typically can't speak because there’s typically people whose privacy they must protect, their own children. And I—I’m never more sorry for anyone than when I meet one of these people. I meet them all the time or I get them in my inbox, and they’re living a nightmare. Not just because of what's happening inside their house, but because the whole of society is gaslighting them.

So the child's school will be saying congratulations, you’ve now got a daughter, you know, this sort of thing. They'll get told they get referred to social services if they go to their family doctor—that person doesn’t help—their own friends say they’re bigots if they don’t go along with something they can see is really harmful for their child. And then there are some of us who have come into it in other ways. For example, we were just trying to do decent journalism and we've now got quite a lot of support from each other.

And I mean, I now work for an organization called Sex Matters where there are several of us, and we can—you know, we have—we have a great time and we feel we’re getting some traction with the UK government. And for us, this is an important civil rights movement really—like I know that our opponents think that we’re trying to reverse equality and civil rights, but no, we see ourselves very much as in the grand tradition of the suffragettes and in the grand tradition of the civil rights activists. You know, we’re fighting for human rights in fact, so we’re having a great time.

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

But, um, I just had something else to be doing, so I'm having fun and, um, yeah, exactly. Well, this is the critical issue. You're not JK Rowling, right? Yeah. And there are other people who have decided to speak. I talked to Andrew Doyle yesterday, and he's a good example of that, right? There are people who've decided to, um, not to remain silent and who aren't—haven't been taken out of the fray entirely on the personal or the social fronts.

And you're definitely one of them. So what—why are you lucky or what did you do right, do you think? So, so on the not taken out, it was very much because The Economist didn't fold. And, all right, okay, so yeah, it's about, yeah, okay, so I wasn't—I wasn't facing destitution, uh… you know, I—what I said. Like my friend Maya Forstatter who founded Sex Matters, she and I talked about these things around the same time—2017, 2018. I had started to think about this as something to write about, not just in The Economist and actually in the end not in The Economist, elsewhere.

And I met her; she was still working at the Center for Global Development, which is an American Washington-based think tank, which has a European arm, and that's where she was working. And she wanted to write things like when you're thinking about global development, it's important to remember that there are two sexes because that—and that used to be a truism. Like everybody understood that you had to think about mothers, you had to think about child mortality, you had to think about maternal mortality.

It used to be obvious that if you gave money to the mother rather than the father, like, it would get spent on the children. You know, there were all these sex-based issues. Violence is very, very sexed as well. Uh, and she was just saying these very ordinary things, and she was told by the Washington office to stay quiet. But she and I would talk a bit, like not—not often, but we met a few times, and we were both saying the same things.

And when the—when the people in the Washington office complained about her at CGD, she ended up losing her job and had to go to employment tribunal and still four years later just finishing off that process. Whereas when they came to The Economist, the editor said we fully stand by Helen Joyce, she's an excellent journalist, and they went away.

You do not have right, of course; stand up to the bullies. No, they can only take you out one at a time. Yes, and they're like sharks; they can smell the blood in the water. So if there's no blood in the water, they just go and find someone else to go after. So it wasn't even as if The Economist had to put much effort into this. It was just the most basic business of saying, "No, we're not bang to bullies."

And it wasn't even that the editor agreed with me; she didn’t—like she didn’t disagree with me either. She just hadn’t got any opinion on it. She just said I don’t like bullies, and I do like free speech, and it was that simple—just saying I don’t like bullies. So it was really her or because I'm curious about why The Economist did support you.

I mean, for a long time—although I think The Economist has become, what would you say—um, reprehensively quasi-woke from time to time in recent years. And that's really been lost as far as I'm concerned because it was one of the world's great magazines and maybe the world's greatest magazine. I think you could make a case for that in some ways.

And, but—but despite the fact that they have tilted in the climate hysteria direction, let's say, and so forth—at least on some occasions—they did stand behind you. And was now—why was that? What was it about The Economist in particular that made that possible? Because especially at the time when this blew up around you, in some ways it would have been easier for them to hang you out to dry, right? Plus, they could have claimed moral virtue while doing so and we know how delightful that is, especially when you don't earn it.

I mean really, it is because the editor has a backbone, and you know it, like it sounds so simple. But you know, I don't think she agreed with me. I don't think she thought the topic was interesting, and she just reflexively wasn't going to let people push her around. And if only there were more people like that.

And also, The Economist is a place—I mean, I would never speak ill of them anyway. I would, you know, because I wouldn't speak ill of an ex-employer, but actually I had 17 very happy years working at The Economist. It's a place with a wonderful ethos and a very strong collegiality, and somewhere where our editorial meetings it is—it is not just accepted; it is expected that you put forward unpopular opinions if you have them.

And so I have stood up in—and I have seen other people do that in those editorial meetings and stood up and argued against—so for example, The Economist really had a strong line in favor of having a second referendum on Brexit and I really opposed that. I thought it was a terrible, terrible mistake and a terrible judgment, um, although I was very anti-Brexit. Like, as far as I was concerned, it was anti-democratic, like once to try to have a second referendum and I stood up and gave it my best shot over about a three-hour editorial meeting that we really shouldn’t go for this.

And the editor and the deputy editor came by my office several times over the next two days and said, you know, what about this, what about this, what about this? You know, they really regarded it as a valuable contribution and then wrote the editorial saying the opposite. So, right, right, you know that. So you guys were actually thinking, thinking and believing in the Socratic method as well, that you're challenging each other, that the person who says the opposite to what everybody else is saying is the person who's helping you most and not just doing it in a reflexive sort of, you know, need your contrarian way.

But I mean, I think that, you know, that's a problem in journalism in general as it's become a graduate profession, and it's not just like I have a PhD in mathematics, so I'm a rather unusual graduate to have gone into journalism. But it's mostly people who will have studied like, you know, great subjects like English or history or, at The Economist, lots of economists obviously, but then also sort of the studies type things, like lots of people who have done social studies or media studies or, you know, journalism itself.

And so they become more homogeneous, um, more distant from what the population is like. Like you used to come into journalism by going into the local press; you probably were undergraduate, you spent your years doorstepping the families of murder victims, going and reporting on council meetings. You know, you learned through shoe leather, and if you were good, you worked your way up through the ranks and you might arrive at a very senior position in one of the great newspapers of the world not having a degree and having an awful lot of common sense and experience.

And now that's just not there because local journalism is dead. So people go straight into those institutions. The pay is much worse from the universal of people, yeah, so it tends to have to be people who have some money behind them because the pay is so bad and you need to live in the capital city. And, uh, yeah, you've just got a very homogeneous, graduate, like, liberal in the American sense—not the 19th century British sense—like hyper-liberal actually, uh, like you’ve got papers like The New York Times that say that they actually have to like really try to get anybody who's right-wing to work for them. And then when they do that, like they get Barry Weiss or somebody, you know, she ends up having to leave because it's so unbelievably unpleasant as a workplace.

Right, tech companies enrich themselves by taking your personal data. They grab your web history, email metadata, and video searches to create a detailed profile on you and then sell that off to the highest bidder. Companies aren't just selling products anymore; they're selling you. You have become the product. To protect your identity and data from these tech giants, I recommend using ExpressVPN.

Every time you go online, think about all the websites you visit. Everything you do and stay online is tracked by these corporations using your public IP address. They can uniquely match your activity and know your location. ExpressVPN makes you anonymous online by camouflaging your IP address and replacing it with a different secure IP of your choice.

ExpressVPN also encrypts all of your data so that it's protected from hackers and anyone else that's trying to spy on you. And what I like most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use. Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected. So if you're like me and believe your internet data belongs to you and not to corporations, then ExpressVPN is the answer. Protect your data with the number one rated VPN provider today. Visit expressvpn.com/Jordan; that's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com/Jordan and get three extra months free.

Yes, and it's a pretty damn weird world where we think Barry Weiss is right-wing. Exactly, I mean it's just beyond comprehension. Yeah, so yeah, okay, so let's go into this. Let's delve into this a little further.

So, you know, we were commiserating with those who wish to remain silent because of the miseries that might be visited upon them, and those are real enough. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s a physician at Stanford, you know, he was taken to task by his erstwhile compatriots when he did nothing but stand up bravely and tell the truth and he lost 35 pounds in three months. And I've talked to plenty of other people who are basically hounded into asylums by the woke mob. And those are strong people, and this is not fun.

But you did this. Now, you even transferred careers. So what the hell are you doing now? Like, what are you up to exactly? You're not working for The Economist anymore, and what's your goal? Um, why do you think it's a valid goal? And then, even more, why are you managing not only to make this successful instead of absolute bloody hell, but something that, you know, you seem fully on board with and actually pursuing to what would you say to some degree of success? How are you managing all that?

So I work part-time for Sex Matters, which is now an organization that has, it's funded almost exclusively by people paying five to ten pounds a month to support us in attempting to shore up the existence of sex—binary sex in law and life. Like it's that simple; we’re standing up for sex-based rights, right, human rights that involve recognizing that there are two sexes. That's—that's Sex Matters, right? Yes, we'll find out more about that at sexdashmatters.org; it’s that simple.

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

So the idea is to drag practice back to where the law is. You know, if we need to take legal challenges or judicial reviews, we will. Um, but also we can engage politically; we can, you know, do mass actions and so on. So that's part of what I spend my time doing. It's not well-paid because this is going to become a charity and charities are not highly paid workplaces; that's fine.

And I write a newsletter that's doing okay, so if people want to find me, that's the helenjoyce.com. Um, and I also do writing tuition, which was something that I used to do anyway, and I make some money from that. So it's not what it used to be money-wise, but it's fine.

Well, I guess we should stop this part of the conversation. I’m going to turn over to the Daily Wire side of the conversation now. For those of you who are watching and listening, um, so you could join us over there. Thanks for your time and attention, everyone, and for the film crew here in Toronto for facilitating this, the Daily Wire Plus for making it possible.

Helen, well it’s always a pleasure talking to you with your mathematical clarity and your love of the true and beautiful in your courage. So like good on you. Thank God you’re one of those 10 people that's stopping Sodom from being annihilated by fire and brimstone, let's say. Um, so far and, uh, we’ll go over the Daily Wire Plus side and continue our conversation.

Well thank you very much, and to the film crew here too, by the way. Oh, yeah, and your book, just so everyone knows her book, which you shouldn't read unless you want to be reprehensible, um, and then to have your phone confiscated, let’s say, by the Irish authorities if you ever happen to visit that fair green emerald, uh, well let’s see.

I may be a test holidays, Jordan. Yeah, no kidding, no kidding. "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality." And you can tell Helen is a reprehensible type because she actually believes that there's a distinction between ideology and reality and is willing to express that sentiment whenever challenged, including in writing. So, pick up the book "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality."

Yeah, and, and you can also wander over to her website and that’s what Helen, you said, Helen Joyce thought, thehelenjoyce.com? There’s some poor woman—right, right, who hasn’t got that website first. Yeah, yeah, thehelenjoyce.com, right? She’s good to follow on Twitter too, which is a place where you can still follow her. Thank you to ELO and Musk.

Okay, good. Off to the Daily Wire we go. Thanks, Helen. Thank you.

[Music]

Foreign

[Music]