Debbie Hayton letter Times 05.10.18

Us is all of us campaigning against self ID & the ‘TWAW’ mantra.

Debbie's cognitive dissonance is not my problem to solve.

Who is "us"?

Debbie does not support the GRA being amended to allow a GRC to be obtained by self-ID. She's a visible trans face against it in fact. So I am happy to thank her for her support in that matter, and applaud the content of this letter.

Debbie uses women’s facilities based on her own ‘self-ID’. But then campaigns against that being actually legally allowed 🤔

Debbie does not support us.

I don’t feel I have anything to ‘thank’ Debbie for and I’m unsure why others feel the need to do so,

FTR I don't 'feel the need' to thank |Debbie in particular - in fact it hadn't really registered with me who Debbie was until Barraker's post (I blame the painkillers) I just liked the letter and the sentiment of the letter. I offer thanks to anyone speaking out on this including every single woman on FWR.

As someone above said the line for me is what women feel comfortable with and while women feel uncomfortable with any man in their space for any number of reasons then the only answer can be no men at all, no exceptions.

I still liked the letter and its sentiments but self ID is not acceptable in any form.

She doesn't.

For decades trans women have used some womens' spaces based on the "honour" system. There are currently no laws that stop men (any men, trans or not) from using many womens' spaces (especially toilets), just custom and challenge by women if they do.

If the GRA is amended to allow self-ID, not only will there be no law to stop them it will actually be against the law to challenge them.

If the GRA stays as it is, or is repealed, or the requirements for a GRC are made more rigourous, then women have more options to move forward and ban all males from our spaces.

That's my take on it anyway.

I'm sure that every self id male transperson will have their own personal reasons why they are entitled to be in females spaces.

The same person who is warning that self id is open to abuse is telling us to trust that their reasons for self id are valid and true.

Women and girls need and want female only spaces. Why does Debbie get to remove them?

I don't think Debbie's personal reasons for not having a GRC are relevant to be honest. I don't know what her reasons are for not supporting the GRA to be amended to allow self-ID.

I just know that if that amendment goes ahead we can't keep any males out of female spaces.

If it doesn't, we can then lobby to draw up the boundary lines properly and if that means Debbie can't use the ladies then so be it.

So right now, whatever her motivation, Debbie is speaking out against self-ID and amendment of the GRA. She is able to get recognition because of who she is, and she is standing WITH women, on this issue at least. I can't see any way that that isn't a good thing.

Debbie is (I think) 'on our side' re self ID becoming legal being a bad thing, because it's carte blanche for abusers. It is partly because of recognition of the dangers to women but also it endangers Debbie's position as someone who has full SRS and dysphoria but who hasn't got a GRC. I don't know Debbie's reasons for that, was it maybe related to not being able to stay married prior to same sex marriage? (I may have imagined that but that would be an understandable reason)

There was a point at which I thought Debbie Hayton respected women and girls too PollyEthel

It's only recently I became aware that DH self IDs and uses Female spaces, and that DH believes the onus is upon women and young girls to challenge DH and/or every man to ask them to leave.

I've revised my opinion as a result.

My daughter cannot push back against any man so I'm doing it for her.

My standpoint is that women (human females) are rightfully entitled to our own names, group identity, provision, legal recognition, medical research and programmes to redress inequality, which specifically exclude all males irrespective of any surgical or hormonal intervention, paperwork, belief, name changes or dress they may have.

Males should be raised to be decent people who respect women's boundaries. Males violating women's boundaries should meet with strong social disapproval and disincentive including criminal proceedings.

Gonna keep saying it....Debbie uses women’s spaces as a self-ID transwoman

Stop saying they agree with us on self ID.

yambabe and kestrel Debbie is not against self ID. Debbie uses self ID.

You are being misled. Debbie is even telling you to be wise, so be wise.

And I just changed my mind about Hope upon acquiring further information. No, it's not OK to threaten to turn up on the doorstep of women who disagree with us - that's toxic masculinity and I want nothing to do with it.

I could cry with relief that some one like you exists - I honestly feel such despair about what's going on. Thank you

The only exceptions I know of are Miranda Yardley and Hope Pink.

And Fionne.

Also, a general principle of negotiation is that you always start by asking for more than you think you can get. If you begin already having conceded to the point where you really weren't willing to concede any more don't be surprised if you end up with far less than you were hoping for.

I just think that alienating people who are willing to work with us to stop self-ID at the stage we are at now is not the best way to achieve our long-term goals

Not only that, but as Needsmoresleep just said on another thread:

FWIW I think gay men will be crucial if Stonewall is to be reined in. Their stake in Self-ID is much less obvious, so they cannot as easily be written off as haters.

The same thing applies to transsexuals: they cannot easily be written off as haters, and given that the public clearly feels a great deal of sympathy for them, the knowledge that many transsexuals are opposed to self ID should give lots of people pause to think.

This is an area where the perfect is likely to be the enemy of the good, in terms of practical outcomes.

Because that (men in womens' spaces) is what is already happening.

Because self-ID without exemptions will mean it can't ever be stopped.

Because if we defeat self-ID then we can move on to draw the boundary lines more clearly.

I don't have a solution. I just think that alienating people who are willing to work with us to stop self-ID at the stage we are at now is not the best way to achieve our long-term goals.

I accept that others disagree, I totally understand their position. I'm just putting my views into the mix for everyone to consider.

The thing is, every transwoman arguing on the basis of legit transwomen versus "self ID" believes that they represent a group that deserves access to women's spaces. They may disagree about what the criteria to be considered legit is (for Debbie it seems to be removal of the meat and two veg), but curiously said criteria always seems to be framed in such a way that while they superficially appear to be defending women's right to single sex spaces they themselves are an exception to that rule. The only exceptions I know of are Miranda Yardley and Hope Pink.

I'm never going to be truly comfortable with anyone whose position hedged in that sort of "sure, women only spaces up to a point, but obviously I should be the noble exception" way, and I think at this point women as a group should be looking at pieces written from that perspective with a critical eye in order to determine whether they're really willing to support that, and whether supporting it in the short term (while the house is clearly on fire, metaphorically speaking) will end up meaning that we're stuck with that compromise forever.

Barracker yr spot on. You’ve articulated it perfectly.

Here's an eminently workable solution.

Only females.

Here are some utterly unworkable ones.
females plus men who have no penis (how are you going to tell?)
females plus men with GRCs (how will you tell?)
females plus men in dresses (seriously?)

When a man enters a communal changing room with a female child already in it - what is your workable solution AT THAT POINT? How is a grown woman supposed to challenge that, let alone a child?

Tell me how that 'solution' works for any girl or woman?

And the idea that females demanding proper recognition of our actual sex is an 'extreme position' shows just how far our rights have already been eroded. It's bloody offensive too.

Hayton self IDs.

No means no.

Hold the line.

Discussed just now on politics live.

We have to say no males, no lies.

They want compromise, there is none they are our rights, we get to hold the line.

We are half the population.

We deserve as do future generations to have sex based rights.

Again, Debbie self ID’s. That’s the problem with supporting their letter.