Debbie Hayton letter Times 05.10.18

Meanwhile back in the real world we need a workable solution that protects us.

Taking the extreme position leaves us in danger (in my mind at least) of losing everything, because we have the numbers but we don't have any of the power.

I'd rather take small victories and let them accumulate than lose. I agree we need 100% female spaces and that's the goal we should be working for because the line HAS been crossed. But to me I would rather fight the biggest issue (self-ID) first, and I'll take any ally I can to help me get that particular issue resolved.

Once that's no longer a threat we can start to move forward with drawing the boundaries and ensuring they don't get overstepped. But if we lose self-ID we stand to lose everything and then what?

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

And why should those who are NOT?!!

I agree with you Barracker, that no men should be able to identify as women and enter women's spaces, regardless of how they feel about their bodies and what surgery they have had.

I quoted the bit above from heresyandwitchcraft's. post. To put it in a bit more context, here's a slightly longer quote.

The initial justification for letting people into female-only facilities was a medical condition, but now you don't even need to have that! Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

I do think that many people - ordinary people as well as politicians, still think that all transgender people are dysphoric and hate their bodies and transwomen with penises are 'pre-op' rather than many (most?) of them are men who love their penises and have no intention of having any sort of 'op' on that part of their anatomy.

Which is why I think we should be asking MPs this question:

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

They need to wake up and see what's really happening, and I think this question nicely encapsulates what is actually going on.

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

And why should those who are NOT?!!

Hayton argues that a man's discomfort with himself is a golden ticket into the opposite sex.

Is that what women are? A vacuum of meaning that dissatisfied men can claim ownership of?

I'm an actual full human person. I have no more in common with a dissatisfied man than I do with a satisfied one. If these men actually saw me as an equal human being rather than an empty vessel they could pour themselves into we would not be having this 'debate' at all.

Jonny Best is now getting death threats. I suspect Debbie Hayton has also had these. I admire you, Debbie, and am grateful to you for the publicity you've given this issue. It's not necessary for campaigners on this issue to agree on all points, IMO, for their contributions to be useful.

And I am pissed off because I just want to go about my business quietly and normally (as Debbie is said to want to) and yet there are males feeling all sorts of feelings doing all sorts of things and passing and not passing as women, with and without penis surgery and now with the aid of boob jobs and facial surgery, getting in my fucking toilets and yes all the other worse infiltrations. As well as the usual sexual innuendo and unecessary flirting.

But to talk about toilets is 'small' sounding, but actually so vital and essential. (I have PTSD) and to many other women.

Where is my peace of mind and comfort?

I have no choice in this matter - Debbie has made their choices and does so knowing it will upset women. I don't know Debbie personally, but I can't find much to like (or excuse) in that behaviour so not sure I would want to.

And couldn't care less if Debbie likes me. In fact I would say that Debbie doesn't like me, even without knowing me, because if we like people do we really cross lines such fundamental lines as this, forcibly making their problem my problem?

I think Debbie wants debate but only to extend the negotiation period not because Debbie will stop using self iD. I hope that he does and I am wrong.

Only full repeal and drawing the lines at male and female will stop this threat to women.

I don’t feel I have anything to ‘thank’ Debbie for and I’m unsure why others feel the need to do so, given that they are still not accepting women’s boundaries. They are adding to the conversation and challenging their own community, while good it’s not something women need to fall over themselves thanking him for.

Whether or not some women are comfortable with post-op trans or not, many more are clearly not ok with it. So true sisterhood means saying NO kindly and firmly to ANY male regardless of identity or transition process.

While we are currently campaigning to stop self-ID, we should always be clear how we feel about our rights and our boundaries and our comfort at all times.

^^however, to make anyone's life needlessly difficult.

Some women’s lives will be, and already are made difficult, by knowing or being confronted with males in our spaces. Many of us have deep trauma to deal with and the very idea of finding a male in our private spaces when vulnerable will or does already, keep us isolated.

If you are not thinking of your sisters, if you’re only considering how you are individually affected, you are part of the problem. I say this calmly, without accusation or anger, but in good faith, with the intention of reminding everyone here of our responsibility when we campaign for women. What we do now, will impact all kinds of women, in all kinds of circumstances, for many years to come.

The women who say they are happy to share are hugely assuming about and disrespectful to the women who do mind.

They are putting males feelings above females feelings, centering males.

Thank you Debbie. That's a good letter and valuable contribution.

I would personally be OK with sharing female spaces with Debbie and others who have had their male genitals removed. But, since other women would not be OK with this, it has to be 'single sex, no exceptions' for female spaces. And the current situation already proves that unclear boundaries get pushed and blurred.

I'll happily stand alongside trans people in fighting for trans spaces.

I will in no way concede. Sex means sex. Sex can't be changed and sex segregation is a necessary option for women to live and move freely without domination or molestation by men. Debbie is taking liberties and all males who cross women's boundaries are massively entitled and disrespectful towards women. The women who say they are happy to share are hugely assuming about and disrespectful to the women who do mind.

All males, including Debbie, who enter spaces for women are massively entitled and disrespectful. They demonstrate a lack common decency by doing so.

However, what Debbie is genuinely entitled to, is an opinion, and I agree with Debbie about cowardly politicians and the nefarious players in this.

No means no. Yet in this specific case I am united with Debbie by a common enemy.

Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?

I'd like an answer to this from those MPs who support self ID.

I have no problem with anyone who engages in this debate on the basis of facts, reality and an acknowledgement of competing rights and the need to address them in a democratic and civilised way.

In my view anyone prepared to do this publicly in the current ridiculous climate should be applauded and thanked regardless of their sex or gender identity.

So I say thank you for speaking out Debbie whether or not I agree with all your views or perspectives or not.

LangCleg its really interesting thread and reading through it, there is stuff clearly I don't know.

Its a fuckin mess for sure. I can't see any other way of enforcing our rights now, unless its sex. And I totally get Barracker that no-one has the right to dictate our boundaries. Yes, Women do have a right to say no to a man in our spaces. We gave an inch and now we are supposed to give the whole fuckin lot.

Women have to look for the gift in this.

Fight hold the line, no males, no lies.

We owe it to ourselves and to future generations.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385350-Meanwhile-in-Ireland-legal-wtfuckery

I have great empathy for Debbie, and think she has been incredibly brave in this. I thank her for speaking up and writing this letter. Her voice is valuable, and reminds me that transsexuals are at great risk. Especially the ones who defy the orthodoxy. She really doesn't need abuse from both sides - she'll be getting plenty from trans activists. I listen to stories like hers, Kristina Harrison's, Rose of Dawn's, etc, and am ALWAYS struck by how these individuals really do need to be protected from harm and allowed every freedom to live their lives as they choose.
Unfortunately, in this debate women have been pushed into an impossible corner now, because nuance has not been allowed and people have been exploiting existing rules. Common sense died a long time ago and the "trans umbrella" just keeps widening... Explain to me why cross-dressers should have any right to female spaces? It doesn't make any sense. The initial justification for letting people into female-only facilities was a medical condition, but now you don't even need to have that! Why should people who are completely comfortable with their own bodies be allowed to call themselves the opposite sex and demand access without question?
So now, for many women the only clear boundary for sensitive female-only facilities is biological sex. Let's be honest, that's always been the only consistent "true" line we can draw, except this discourse has brought that fact into stark relief.
So first, I think we need to stop self-ID - for the benefit of women AND transsexuals. On this question, we can all agree. Then we can have other difficult conversations with people who do not routinely deny biological reality and recognize women as equals (or even the key stakeholders) in these questions.

(Also, although it's besides the point of the political argument, in which I largely argue against Debbie's proposed best solution, and it's heretical to some, I like Debbie on a personal level. Jus' sayin'.)

Debbie IS self-ID personified.

Yes and no.

Debbie does have a line in the sand: SRS surgery, so penis or sans penis. Debbie sees legalities as besides the point.

I agree with you that - even if some of us are prepared to share spaces with post-SRS transsexuals - this is not enforceable and it results in constant pushes for further relaxation of women's boundaries. So I'm for sex segregation, no exceptions.

However, I'm still glad to see Debbie condemn aggressive activism and try to raise awareness about safeguarding loopholes especially for children.

I do also agree with Barracker and Lang - Debbie is not being straight forward here

Whilst I can see the obvious point made about post-op transsexuals, with all the compassion in my nature, the problems I find with Debbie's situation are many and complicated

~that the GRC isn't tied to being post-op, perhaps if it was women would have some semblance of reassurance (socialisation notwithstanding)

~that Debbie does not have a GRC, and it isn't linked to being post-op, so even if wanting to reassure women when Debbie uses the women's without feeling the need to ask consent, Debbie has nothing to show/prove they have gender dysphoria or are post-op, thus women are left forced to trust, which is not trust but hope, and finger crossing and forced acquiescence.

~that provable gender dysphoria has not stopped some men hurting women

~that I cannot tell a post-op transsexual from a non-post-op transwoman or cross dresser just by looking which does not help me or other women and again, puts us in finger crossing and forced acquiescing territory, and now I know how some males feel about their 'rightful womanness', I am more wary than ever.

~if Debbie had a GRC which had to be linked to post-op and was campaigning to make asking for proof be acceptable and normal then I would feel more encouraged by Debbie

~Debbie uses self-ID but is supposedly campaigning against it. Or something

What the hell is there here to be so grateful and polite about with all this double standard mess? It is absolutely more fucking about with our heads.

I read that this morning in The Times. Excellent, well-thought out letter that came across extremely well.

Compromise is necessary in order to ensure that more good people are not harmed by this

I refuse to agree that the rollback of women’s rights is inevitable, and that agreeing to quibble over the extent of it is in any way a good idea. This is how our rights will be demolished - by compromise after compromise after compromise until we’ve made it all the way to the destination originally intended. Are men’s boundaries being pushed? Are men being expected to grovel to keep scraps of their previous rights?

Now is the time for resolve and an assertion of rights and boundaries. Now is the time to come together and find each other as women and push back. In some ways, this has been a gift for the feminist movement, and looking to negotiate the terms of the rollback of our rights is not the way to use that gift.

Compromise sounds to me a bit like, "we'll keep the men abusing you to a minimum, (not sure how, but that's the goal) but it's awfully unreasonable of you to expect to deny EVERY man from abusing you, surely you can see that!"

My daughter, like any female, has the right to female privacy. She shouldn't have to challenge a grown man, and he shouldn't be telling her how he gets to overrule her because he has a GRC/penectomy/feelings/whatever.

Seriously. Being female is ENOUGH. There are 33million of us. That's enough. We're not fucking labradors, they're not our owners, they don't get to dictate our rights.
It isn't enough to tell me and my child "the best you can hope for is that you won't get harmed by your overlords"

Are we do resigned to not being equal humans as a sex that we just accept men walking all over us and we scrape and thank them for it too?

Dammit.

I'm off for my cervical smear.

This movement benefits no-one except some very aggressive, entitled men with fetishes. I'm saving my anger for them.

Yeah I feel like this.

GRC was only ever a fudge cos the government wasn't brave enough to allow same-sex marriage.

I think there was also an issue about 'outing' someone who was transgender. But this is also an issue of tolerance - if we were all totally accepting of transgender people, why would they need to keep their transgender status a secret?

We need a more tolerant society which is accepting of people who don't present as the sex they were born, and then there would be no need for the GRA.

Debbie recognises they are male and a transwomen. That's their self id. Fair enough.
I think at this point you're picking unnecessary fights with the wrong people.