Boundaries and Allies

Debbie Hayton absolutely uses women's toilets. Not only have they said so on here, they've said so in that tweet ('oops, too late'. Does not refer to them having wet themselves, despite the ambiguity).

It's undeniable. I don't get people saying otherwise.

The threads where DH has discussed this are here to be read if you search for them - and I do respect that DH has engaged here and has never been less than civil.

But yes, DH has explained on those threads their feeling entitled to use women's spaces regardless of how women feel about them. If I remember right, one conversation went to the effect of how many women needed to consent for it to be ok, and if 75% were ok then would that be enough. Which disregards completely that the 25% refusing will include the most vulnerable of women who will have NO facilities in order to provide DH with access to choice of facilities.

DH is dismissive of the toilets issue in the same way that DH is dismissive of women's needs and concerns because to acknowledge there is a problem would endanger DH's personal access to women's spaces. DH's work against self ID shares ground with women, but is about protecting DH's personal access to women's spaces and how this is being threatened by the TRA agenda. It is not in any way about recognising or respecting women's rights or needs. As said, it was understanding this that switched me to believing this needs to end in no men in women's spaces. None. At all. Regardless of circumstance. They need other solutions.

I know that I am being watched by people with vastly different opinions on this matter so I need to be careful what I say. In response to the main issue being discussed on this thread.

Firstly, I regret sharing in a private group a flippant report of a flippant comment I once made. I apologised to the group shortly afterwards and I apologise here. While I do sometimes use black humour to get through what life throws at me, in this case it was totally inappropriate.

Secondly, I respect the wishes of whoever is chairing a meeting I attend. I have joked about using buckets in the past. That was also flippant. Always arrangements have been made for trans people such as me that respect everyone's dignity. Indeed at Bloomsbury Baptist Church it was single use facilities for everyone as far as I could see.

In wider contexts I can make arguments for:
(a) Strict sex segregation;
(b) Segregation on the basis of apparent sex characteristics - i.e , GRS and hormone treatment;
(c) Segregation according to "the gender in which you are presenting".

The latter is the is the easiest to police in reality - and it's how things have worked for years. Transsexuals were quietly accommodated without anyone checking our GRS status.

However, things have changed. It isn't just Self-ID, a seeming sense of entitlement has damaged the trust and confidence that used to keep us all going. I saw this coming three years ago, and it led to my first blog on this topic: debbiehayton.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/caution-urged-when-parliament-debates-changes-to-trans-rights/

I recognise the strong feelings here. I also have strong feelings because this is personal to me. I am struggling with this at thee moment so I'm not going to indicate my current practice. However, I will say that one argument that really troubles me is:

By using the women's toilets, I make it more difficult for women to challenge those with nefarious intent ... the abusive male could say "well if it's OK for Debbie then why not me?"

That puts women in a very difficult position. I get that.

Plenty of it about Spartacus, now women have started to speak out we'll find out more and more about supposed allies and our boundaries.

The gaslighting has been snuffed, finally.....

And to add DH needs to stop using women's facilities and I would be pleased if they used their position as a teacher and father to make it clear that they thought it was unacceptable for schools and workplaces etc to allow males to 'identify' in to female facilities such as toilets.

Always speaks down to or over women. When I see Hayton discussing women's rights like on the news I just see men talking about what we are permitted. Same old story.

They changed school policy so their teenage students call them miss.

Self id's while claiming self id is harmful.
Hypocrisy personified

If I were starting a new job in DH’s school and saw DH in the women’s lavs with other women being quiet about it how could I speak out if I were uncomfortable? Particularly as an NQT?

It’s presented as a done deal to every new starter in DH’s school. And that’s not on. Before we even get started on DH having children apologise for “misgendering”.

I have never claimed that Debbie is not a man (is that allowed?) As far as I know they do not claim otherwise.

Chiochan just to clarify also I was saying that you thought that the issue was trivial. I didn't see any of you posts before I posted mine. I am a slow writer! I was picking up on something a PP said about the issue regarding toilets being trivial - not to argue with the PP but to explain why I disagree with that statement. I don't have anything against DH, as such but I do believe DH uses women's toilets and I do believe that it is wrong and that DH needs to seriously reflect on this. I am too concerned about what is happening to sexually abused girls with regards to their boundaries and their wellbeing, to worry about a grown adult. However I certainly do accept that DH has taken some flack for DH's stance and I also think that the article DH did for the TES is/will be regarded more highly for being written by a transsexual male teacher and that will hopefully result in more teachers reading the excellent Transgender Trend guidance. The result of which will be increased safeguarding within schools.

If Debbie uses the womens loos where they work, given it has more than, say two other employees who are their besties, then I stand corrected. If this is the case they are stepping over womens boundaries.

Insurgents should be I suggest

Boundary erosion can sneak up on you though. There was a Sky item about self-id a short while before Posie's face-off with the doctor, and my sister happened to be visiting when it came on. Although she wasn't at all GC at that time she reacted immediately, said "why do they (Sky) have two transwoman on discussing this? Why isn't there a (biological) woman arguing for women?" It hadn't occurred to me, I was just so grateful that someone was there to argue for women's right to privacy. But I wondered afterward why DH didn't tell Sky it would be more appropriate to have a woman representing the GC female view.

And never once has he asked for consent from us.

Hayton is taking the piss.

I need to stop, because I don't want to get banned.
But I suspect, if any of us saw in real life a young girl faced down by ANY man who felt entitled to get changed, or be in a private space with her, no matter his motivation, we would, to a woman, stand between them and bar the way to that man. No matter the consequences. No matter what name he goes by, or which pronouns, or what clothes. We would shield that child, that adolescent, from the man. We would deny him. We would put her first. We would protect. Her. Not him.

Every conversation I have on this subject is me, a mother, standing between an entitled man, barring the way to his route into my daughter's female space.
And with all my words I'm trying, and often failing, to have anyone who listens turn from facing that man, pitying that man, towards my child. I want them to metaphorically face my daughter. See HER. And then look, with open eyes, at the grown men who tell you they matter more than her. See them clearly for what they are.
No matter what bar they jumped, what certificate they gained, what rights they think they've claimed, ultimately the naked truth is that grown men are demanding access to young girls. Demanding these girls never, ever defy them. And every single man who does this, to a man, is not an ally.

I'd like to make clear that when I said 'the convoluted ironies of the battle for womens rights' I am not dismissing human rights for women as either trivial or a convoluted irrelevance.
The phrase was meant to point out the absurdity of a society so misogynistic that the very existence of the class of humans that basically underpins it, is up for debate.

And your wrong about Debbie, well as far as we know.

I would also like to add that as far as I know Debbie does not and never has self ID in to womens spaces, they have always been emphatic on the point that they are only ever invited in to womens spaces

Crap. Debbie and I have been in the same spaces many times. I’ve seen Debbie come out of women’s loos in these spaces. Debbie has never asked my consent. Never. Debbie has always assumed it. And it has never been given.

That Debbie is held up as a protector of women’s rights by feminists is insane. Debbie doesn’t give a stuff for women.