Times today: JK Rowling fell foul of transgender thought police

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

Except that for most of us the self interest is for our group, for women, even those we consider too militant. Whereas for DH the self interest is for DH himself.

He says so quite clearly. He presents himself completely disingenuously. His narrative is along the lines of: I know I'm male, I like it when people use feminine pronouns for me but I'm not bothered if they use sex-accurate pronouns, 'cos see I'm so nice and reasonable that women will let me in, but those nasty extremist TRAs are spoiling it for me.

So, while I'm glad he speaks up and peaks others, I don't think he is in any way an advocate for women's rights.

However if there is simultaneous advocating of compelled speech and access to single sex facilities based on gender, this does change the context of DH.
I can't see anything in the article about that. The only objections I can see to the article itself is that the writer isn't the right kind of writer.
It's going for the player when we should be watching the ball.

Anyway I'm getting bored of hearing myself so I'm off.

That is exactly what I mean about purity tests. Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

Agreed. However if there is simultaneous advocating of compelled speech and access to single sex facilities based on gender, this does change the context of DH.

E.g if I am a vocal vegan advocate - it’s not a purity test to say you then can’t promote bacon sandwiches.

If DH has updated opinions on this - I would be very happy to hear. Many of us have been on a journey with this.

That is exactly what I mean about purity tests. Nothing that Hayton is or does changes the content of that article.

*in this debate

Also it's the very fact that time and time again these men are seeking to be centred and elevated as leaders in their debate. Same old man thing, innit?

I don't think not wanting DH to constantly be handed national media platforms is a "purity test". He is a profiteer of women surrendering our rights. FGS he has desires to run Stonewall. His inclusion in this debate is to secure his position as a transexual and some attachment to women's rights because, as Long puts it, he's had a meaningful transition.

I don't think I'm naive but I'm pragmatic and I want to win this. I also dislike authoritarianism and purity, no matter what direction it comes from.

I don't expect everyone who speaks out to have the same agenda or to be a friend. But if they write something that's helpful - and I've still only seen one criticism of the content of that article - then I appreciate it.

I agree DH has been helpful about vocalising differences in thought within the transgender community and comes across well in the media. 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'm another who dislikes the purity test. Has DH had a road to Damascus conversion? Probably not. Is it annoying that The Times hired a TW instead of a female writer? Definitely.

But this article covers the issues we are concerned about, brings them to new audiences for the first time and, as much as we hate to admit it, being written by a TW probably makes men more likely to consider it.

My issue is that DH’s message is contradictory. Yes he states TWAM but the union guidelines he helped create state compelled speech and single sex facilities based on gender. Exactly what I am
against.

It’s a bit naive to equate the self interest of an ambitious man to the self interest of preserving the rights of women.

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

I am tired of purity tests. Whatever Hayton's agenda, I think the content of that particular article was helpful to women and that's the only test I'm interested in.

Not chose, choose.

I think it is a valid question to ask why the Times would chose an AGP male to mansplain on the matter of the harassment of women by men.

Many men become concerned when they realise there could be real impacts on their mums or wives or daughters.

I don't really see people telling them off for starting from self-interest.

The opposite to telling them off I think, many people encourage men to take an interest in the issue using that as the motivator.

It was an example; my point is that the issue DH has noticed clearly isn't quite the same as the issues women have noticed.

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.

The fact that lots of men are in denial about the implications of the pornification of woman in the west is besides the point, really.

Why should Hayton have to acknowledge that? Lots of people don't believe that, including man who have serious concerns about gender ideology.

There isn't some kind of list of things to be believed that people need to check every box in order to be ok. I'd be pretty pissed off if random people thought that about my views and no one else should have to submit to that either.

Many people only begin to notice an issue when it starts to impact them in their lives.

Mm, but I remain unconvinced by how much of the issue DH has actually noticed yet.

For example, I've yet to see acknowledgement from DH that their own transition is rooted in the sexism and misogyny endemic to our society, and is an emergent feature of a rigidly controlled sexist system that speaks to the transitioner having internalised a metric fuckton of misogyny.

To me the internalisation of misogyny is a very major component of this issue, whereas DH's idea of what constitutes the issue appears to be the fact that the kids have come up with a new ruleset that's fucking up the revoltingly misogynistic game DH likes to play.

I won't pay them to read what he has to say, though I did read some of the excerpts that have been posted.

Hayton's forced teaming exploits Jo Rowling's celebrity for self promotion the same way Prick News targeting her for self promotion does.
Nothing Hayton does matches what they say. Nothing.
Then you might see the video with his wife and suddenly you realize what you are seeing and feel sick.