Debbie Hayton in the Times today

Reading thread properly now - I'm repeating what others have pointed out already!

This is a tough one.

My first thought was 'Great article! An informed voice of reason!'

Immediately followed by a flash memory of the haunted shell shocked face of Mrs H in that video interview.

Is her pain any less than those of the transwidows in the MN escape committee, because her husband writes eloquently and reasonably, and engages reasonably with the critical community? We can't know - but I doubt it.

Shouldn't she be the one welcomed in and platformed by women's organisations, instead of her husband?

MrsTodds I agree with you. Sportswomen such as Martina and Sharon have done a great job in putting the case. But the voices of transwomen are very valuable as they are the ones benefitting from being allowed into women's sport, so if they also agree that it isn't fair, that's a powerful thing to say.

Yes, that does help me see what you mean. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Quite so Spartacus

Errol, not talking about anybody specific, but you have presumably seen how badly many of the women on the trans widows threads are treated by their husbands?

Imagine then if a transsexual with a wife got here first and was not only welcomed but lauded here as a stunning and brave feminist.

How then could his wife post here? If she tried to do it anonymously she would know he was already here and watching. If she did it openly as her husbands wife, knowing what the dynamics of these relationships often are, we would never know if it is her voice or her husbands's.

I can only reiterate if I had been in this situation there would be no trans widows thread, and it's only by sheer good luck that my ex is a TRA not a brave and stunning gender Critical feminist.

If this had happened to me, would you consider it to be a price worth paying for validation?

We talk a lot about men in women's spaces. The ultimate appropriation is allowing transsexuals to appropriate feminism and thus exclude their wives from the help of other women.

I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than this?

I agree, the language is designed to confuse the general public, the reality is almost too silly to believe. Expect lots of people will wake up and realise what has been allowed to happen, during the Olympics.
Fawning over biological men making simple statements is nothing new; Debbie Hayton writes from a transgender viewpoint ( whether or not they support all transgender demands), whilst its great that they’re talking sense about this topic it certainly isn’t a reason for a fanfare.
There is something about the word ‘ally’ that just grates on me - don’t know why

Tinsel -
I'm sorry. I'm obviously missing something important here that you know infinitely more than I could. But it's honestly still eluding me - I can't imagine anyone here being other than delighted to hear from a woman whose husband had previously established a presence here. I must be looking at it from the wrong POV...This is why it's so important that you, and those transwidows who can, continue to to post. And apologies again for my current denseness on this.

From talking to people who don't have a clue about what is going on, it's clear to me that a lot of people can't see past female pronouns and the word 'woman' in 'trans woman', which leaves them with the impression that some type of woman is being discriminated against. They don't understand that we are talking about actual men in women's sports.

It's quite obvious from some of the comments I've seen on articles like this that many people think 'transwoman' or 'trans woman' means a woman who is transitioning. I also noticed from reading some of the sporting bodies' transgender guidance that they use 'transgender female' to mean a man who wants to compete in the female category. The language is designed to confuse.

I wonder if some people see the trans widows threads as like a zoo? A good zoo obviously where animals are rehabilitated to go back into the wild maybe. But still just something to look at, and not take account of the experiences of the beings in there?

I can think of no other explanation for anybody thinking a trans widow could post here if their husband was here already. This is why it is so vitally important that feminist spaces are for women.

I think mealy-mouthed articles like this just confuse the issue. Regular Times readers are better informed on this topic, but for the uninitiated Hayton's piece reads like a woman talking about women who happen to be bigger and stronger because their trans-ness makes them more similar to men.
From talking to people who don't have a clue about what is going on, it's clear to me that a lot of people can't see past female pronouns and the word 'woman' in 'trans woman', which leaves them with the impression that some type of woman is being discriminated against. They don't understand that we are talking about actual men in women's sports.

Tinsel, Another and Sparta are quite right here.

I am at least comforted that the reason this thread has garnered a few pages worth of replies is because there have been more voices than usual questioning the common over egged gratefulness at the male voice in comparison to the overlooked female ones.

It's my contention that Tinsel has some extremely important things to say that should not need to be confined to the Transwidow threads that she started, and one of them is the utter tone deafness of suggesting that there is nothing stopping Hayton's wife from posting here honestly.

FWIW, if anyone hasn't already said it, on the particular subject of sport at this moment in time I think a "dream team" would be an article about the need to segregate by sex with contributions from:

• a woman currently competing and/or coaching (women/men/transwomen)

• transwoman currently competing against men (or a transwoman coach with experience of coaching transwomen/women/men)

• a man currently competing against men (or a male coach with experience of coaching men/women/transwomen).

I'm rushing on my way out to the gym at this very moment so apologies if any of that garbled! :-)

? I don't know, but there is absolutely nothing to stop her posting on here if she wants,

Seriously? You think a trans widow could participate in a space that has already been colonised by her husband? If my ex had got here first there would be no trans widows threads. But presumably that would be a price worth paying for validation by transexuals?

If anyone from the Times happens to be reading this, it'd be really good if you could find a transwidow willing to talk about her experience.

We can only work with what we've got in the media so for now on the times that's Turner, bannerman, Gilligan and Hayton.

I note that Hayton doesn't want to answer what his wife thinks.

Maybe she's a private sort of person who doesn't particularly wish to make her views on this or anything else public? I don't know, but there is absolutely nothing to stop her posting on here if she wants, even if not columns in the times etc. I'd certainly be very interested to hear from the partner of a 'public' TW, but obviously it's her call if she wants to engage.

Imo it would be quite wrong for Hayton to tell us what his wife thinks if she doesn't wish to speak for herself. I mean seriously, would you want your partner doing that?

Anything written by a transsexual "ally" on here always gets more attention than anything written by a trans widow, that's for sure.

For me, it's not the fact that a transwoman wrote the article. After all, it was written from the point of view of a trans person rather than women, so is fair enough.

What I found irritating was the gushing "brave and stunning" praise that seems absent when women write about the subject. Like Errol, I was pleased to see the subscriber called Gradgrind inserting links to FPFW or whatever. If she's here, thank you.

That's all true, but my point there was just this simple one:
A member of a group saying 'we should do this' has more weight than members of another group saying 'they should do this'.

How transwomen can participate fairly and safely in sports is a question which ultimately will need to be negotiated between them and other males. (As I said upthread, the prerequisite is our no). That should be the frame of reference, and sensible articles like this by transwomen help shift the responsibility to where it should be.

This is it, Errol. Everyone here can argue the toss about who should or shouldn't be writing what, or appearing where.

However, none of that negates the fact that there is a sizeable chunk of society, which includes lots of policy makers, who couldn't give two hoots what women think/write/care about or whether or not women either are or feel, safe, recognised or included fairly in society, any meaningful way.

If they did, our judicial and political system as well as our education and employment systems - oh, all our systems would look different.

They don't.

For a reason.

So to try and circumvent that with what should happen with regard to the blatantly obvious overwriting of women's rights with trans rights, when it comes to who is listened to, is folly.

Unless any of us are women who identify as trans, we can't write from a trans perspective.

Debbie can't write from a woman's perspective, but can write from a transexual perspective.

So long as we are all writing with the aim of separating women's rights and trans rights and protecting them as entirely separate entities, and that our sex based protections are left alone, and not weakened, then it feels like cutting off our noses to spite our faces in terms of protecting women only structures and holding back self ID.

My argument - essentially - is that it is unfair and possibly unsafe for transwomen to compete with women, so we should campaign for specific provision within men's sport.
*
A woman could have written that but it would be more difficult for them to defend it.*

Actually, a woman couldn't have written that. We could write that they should campaign for specific provision within men's sport. We do need transwomen putting the case for what they should do.

Because, patriarchy, misogyny and woke-fullness of the audience.