Times today: JK Rowling fell foul of transgender thought police

It's not victimless. And he must know that. Just take a look at the transwidows threads. It's far from victimless.

Forcing people to collude in your fetish is making every single one of those people a victim of it.

This is the heart of the matter.

My critique of gender ideology should in no way be interpreted as an argument to deny such therapies to males such as myself.

I think we act against our own interests when we forget that this is DH's stated position.

a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself

While I agree with the need to demystify, I fear DH is not going to like the result. Because when you destigmatise it and we all start having an open and honest conversation about it, it rapidly becomes apparent that male transsexuals are no different to other males when it comes to acknowledging that their construction of reality is deeply sexist.

I dare say it would benefit DH if stigma were reduced amongst men, but women tend to be horrified when we realise just what a warped idea of womanhood they've managed to acquire.

a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias)

It's not victimless. And he must know that. Just take a look at the transwidows threads. It's far from victimless.

Forcing people to collude in your fetish is making every single one of those people a victim of it.

One of the things that I think is interesting about DH has been to see an increasing understanding of AGP as the source of dysphoria, from a personal perspective

Dr Hayton acknowledged his autogynephilia some time ago however the potential impact on others & discussion appears to have been minimised/ controlled /limited.
I'm unsure why someone male who claims to acknowledge the reality of their sex travels on a passport which states female sex.

Quilette February 2, 2020
'I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy'
written by Debbie Hayton
(extract)
"Autogynephilia drove my own transsexualism. And I can attest that there is huge mental dissonance built up in the brain of a male who somehow is heterosexually attracted to their own body. This paradox can have a devastating effect on one’s mental health. I also can attest that the process of gender reassignment can help alleviate that dissonance. My critique of gender ideology should in no way be interpreted as an argument to deny such therapies to males such as myself.

Rather than protect the emotional fragility of people who don’t want to investigate the nature of their autogynephilia, a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias), while also ensuring that therapies are available for trans adults who understand the attendant medical ramifications. We should not need to pretend that we are women (to ourselves or anyone else) in order to find relief from gender dysphoria.

Cross-dressing—or transvestism as it once was called—is more common than some imagine: A 2005 study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that almost three percent of Swedish men reported at least one episode of transvestic fetishism. Of course, this is not the same as being transgender. But since autogynephilia is associated with both the need to dress in women’s clothes and feminize one’s body, we can never fully demarcate the two. (Thus, an old joke in the community about transitioners who start out as occasional cross-dressers: “What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About five years.”) (continues)

quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3812773-Impressive-new-article-by-Debbie-Hayton

You realise that people don't choose to have these kinds of fetishes

Um, I take it you missed those threads where we analysed the sociocultural origins of the fetish? I was heavily involved and making the case that these fetishes are an emergent feature of the sociocultural context, that individuals can't be blamed for having absorbed the revolting messages championed by society, and that I do not judge AGPs for having acquired the fetish but rather for refusing to accept that the maintenance of this fetish is actively harmful to women.

I'm still on excellent terms with the AGP ex because he actually changed his mind when the underlying misogyny of reducing women to sexual objects to be inhabited was explained to him. That's the bit DH hasn't done.

As for Blanchard, while he talks a lot of sense, it's important to account for his cognitive bias. He didn't see any harm in allowing men to parody womanhood for sexual kicks either, because he is a product of his society and so it didn't occur to him to consider it from anything other than the dominant male-supremacist angle. I do not blame him for this; but again, I hold him to account for not acknowledging the harms to women when they're pointed out repeatedly.

You are of course not disqualified from having a view, but I'm aware that our views don't necessarily align on the subject of how the mechanisms of women's oppression are maintained and propagated, so I wouldn't expect us to agree.

My analysis of AGP isn't a "gender critical" one. It's a radical feminist one, informed both by the available literature and by personal experience. You don't actually have to subscribe to radical feminist analysis to express an opinion here, you know?

I'm usually involved in these threads but found it quite cathartic to write 1700 words on the subject. I haven't got much to add to that at the moment.

uncommongroundmedia.com/which-side-are-you-on-girls-trans-widows/

I wasn't aware of that. Can you link to it?

I'm not aware of that either.

I believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

Good. Agreed everyone is allowed to change their minds. Most of us have been on a journey.

I also would say there are very large numbers of women who are on the side of women's rights who have a variety of views about pronoun usage.

Agree on this too. Everyone should have freedom of choice of speech. However pronoun guidance and forced apologies - as detailed in the NASUWT guidance - equates to compelled speech in the workplace, and is unacceptable.

I believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you link to it?

He has stated that AGP is the reason for transition but then that raises issues for me that he is happily including children in his fetishtic parody of woman

The literature on AGP doesn't say that people who have it transition so they can be involved in a sexual fetish at all times.

This idea seems to be expressed a lot here and I think it's a misunderstanding of what Blanchard described. Which is that persons with AGP begin to experience dysphoria in everyday life as a result of the AGP, and the transition is meant to help resolve the dysphoria. Not be a constant fetishistic sexual activity.

However criticising clear hypocrisy over advocating compelled pronouns/gender based single sex facilities at work (which is discussed greatly on this forum) is not about the purity test - it’s about being clear where we protect the rights of women and girls.

I believe Hayton has changed views on toilets etc. Which is allowed. So have many people.

I also would say there are very large numbers of women who are on the side of women's rights who have a variety of views about pronoun usage. I'm not sure why that's considered a purity test either.

DH is a self-confessed AGP, remember. AGP is definitely one of the issues we have noticed; DH has not (to my knowledge) acknowledged anything problematic about AGP. If you can't see the inherent misogyny of it, some research may be in order.

You realise that people don't choose to have these kinds of fetishes? It's rather bad luck to get stuck with one in fact.

I don't know that I think they are inherently misogynistic either, though the way people are being encouraged to interpret them is. Does that disqualify me from having a view? Writing an article? One of the things that I think is interesting about DH has been to see an increasing understanding of AGP as the source of dysphoria, from a personal perspective. I'm not sure if there is any other well known personality who has talked about that publicly at all.

DH isn't writing on behalf of women, but rather trans people, particularly transwomen. The Times may give too much voice to transwomen I suppose though I haven't noticed that to be particularly the case, and I read it every day. I don't think it's reasonable to say they should have no voice, especially in a newspaper that regularly talks about the issue. There are lots of articles by women saying that this is a problem in that publication.

If a transwoman wrote an article in the Times saying, women are stupid about complaining about all this and need to be quiet, everyone here would complain. It is not a bad thing when a transwoman says no, actually I think women have a point, and by the way this isn't good for us trans people either. In fact it's not uncommon for people here to say that more need to stand up and say these things.

He has stated that AGP is the reason for transition but then that raises issues for me that he is happily including children in his fetishtic parody of woman

He has indeed stated that.

Try reading R0wantrees post, yesterday at 11.00, in the context of a male teacher with AGP 'playing a key role' in the formulation of the schools' guidance.

Every time he's promoted we send the message to trans widows, and children of these narcs, that we don't care one iota about their suffering.

TinselAngel wrote an incredibly powerful piece about that. uncommongroundmedia.com/which-side-are-you-on-girls-trans-widows/

DH has been a useful voice I guess but I too find the interview when his wife is present uncomfortable
He has stated that AGP is the reason for transition but then that raises issues for me that he is happily including children in his fetishtic parody of woman

I got into this out of self interest too. I'd be surprised if there are many people who didn't.

Really? That's depressing.

I got into it when I was still a kid, back in the nineties, out of compassion for my fellow humans. I'm still not clear on how anyone can be aware of the existence of HSTS people without being blown away by the staggering societal homophobia their condition is testament to.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, how can anyone watch Hayton's wife on that clip and not see how traumatised and abused she is. Every time he's promoted we send the message to trans widows, and children of these narcs, that we don't care one iota about their suffering. I refuse to be on the opposite side to those women, I will not do it. I will always speak out against this shitty women hating narrative.

Sorry, I should have found words to post alongisde the link.

If you continue watching you'll see Debbie's wife being interviewed.

Women do not exist to provide balm to the wounded male psyche. If Debbie has changed Debbie's mind about that then Debbie should be putting it front and center in every article, rather than angling for a "well some of us are different and should be allowed in" conclusion to the debate.

I haven't watched all that clip, but much as I sympathise with DH struggles with mental health, it's still no reason why DH should be in a changing room with naked girls or women. And it's not a reason why any other transwoman should be either.

Why should women and girls give up their privacy to a accommodate males' mental health issues? Why is this seen as reasonable?

Shall we simply accept that females have no agency at all in modern society? Because that is what we are being asked to do.

The only objections I can see to the article itself is that the writer isn't the right kind of writer.

I think you must have missed my initial objection then!

The article itself, viewed separately from its author? Pretty useful for bringing a bit of sunlight to new audiences; damages women by casting feminists - the group agitating for decent safeguarding and the respect of sexual boundaries - as extremists.

It's a subtle effect of DH's word choices; whether it was deliberate or not, I view it as unhelpful misrepresentation.

Doesn't help that DH then casts DHself as the voice of reason in this debate. DH is not the voice of reason; DH is and always was part of the problem.

Disingenuous writer throwing a bit of shade at us, in other words.

The language used to describe the dickheads who've been going after JKR doesn't help us either. It takes an almost comic tone. Where is the seriousness? The language of the article does little to convey the severity of the abuse and harassment women face over this issue; in fact it minimises it by its use of jokey hyperbolic language.

That article does not take women's issues seriously. It takes DH's issue (the kiddies' squabbling interfering with the hobby) seriously.

Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

Hypocrisy, when brought to light, can undermine the good a person says. Can cause people to reject every piece of advice and revert to doing what benefits them personally.

You could test that with a recent scenario of similar public gross hypocrisy. Where an architect of a national policy told the nation what we must all do, and why. And we complied, for the greater good. Putting what was right for others, above ourselves as an individual. Then the hypocrite was discovered to have made himself a special exception to the rules, placing others at immense risk. Not just those immediately impacted by his personal actions. But on a larger scale, because all those who observed his hypocrisy and then copied him, chose to abandon rules designed to protect other people. Placed their own convenience above risk to others.

I shrug mostly, when people I disagree with gain a platform in the national press, and I assume that many readers merely glance over the article, ignoring the name of the writer. Perhaps the article changes minds for the good. Maybe it's still net progress. I can accept that.

But I won't judge women in a feminist forum for critiquing a man writing about what rights we ought or ought not to have and whether those rights should or should not extend to us being allowed to refuse to comply with his expectations.

Perhaps he's had a change of heart from when he was on here arguing his right to be in a changing room with my naked daughter superceded her right to space away from him.
If he has, he's never popped back to apologise for making women fight him on this, and for forcing them to loudly and angrily defend their daughters' right to privacy from him.

Ultimately, he's just yet another man invited to wax lyrical on women's rights in place of a woman who should have done so instead.

*No 'misgendering' in this post. Hayton has long since granted women permission to use male pronouns for him, and has declared "TW are Men" so this post breaks no guidelines.

It's not that I disagree with what Hayton has written.

I object to the idea that a whole bunch of men are disagreeing with each other over what criteria women should be forced to accept to allow them access.

Agreed. I particularly object to a person who openly admits that they have AGP being presented as the voice of reason in the debate about what rights women need and should be allowed to maintain when other males with AGP don't want us to.

Everyone is entitled to express their views. It is helpful that there are a range of views within the trans movement and that it is not all TWAW.

It is irking that a TW gets Times column inches when articulate women don't, but better to have these views published. It is not acceptable to give greater weight to views expressed by a man than by a woman.