Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview transcript

[quote Al77]@Datun That is exactly what I am saying. Transexual women have been sharing my toilet spaces for my entire adult life. I have met them in clubs, pubs , public toilets and work toilets. This is not new. As far as I can tell the current legislation backs this up, perhaps I am wrong on this and maybe it has been illegal for them to access toilets all along but I don't think so and they have been. I don't think it is an affront to anyones dignity or safety.

"We do not agree to men in our spaces. And whether you feel that is acceptable or not, or whether you understand that or not, is irrelevant.The answer is no. Because they are our spaces. Ours to gate keep. Not Debbie's, or India's, or Tara's, or Jan's."

I agree they should be, but I think you underestimate how far this ideology has spread and just repeating the mantra is the same as a TRA repeating TWAW. Standing guard at a gate when someone has just removed the boundary fence.[/quote]
Are you saying that when they take our boundary fence, we should just consider that fight lost and go on to the next?

So we should just relinquish any rights that they manage to take without trying to reclaim them and hope they don’t press for more?

If someone nicked my physical garden fence, No chance will I just roll over and let them have it... it’s my fucking fence!..... And that’s just a bit of wood, so if I won’t let someone steal a bit off wood of me, there is no way I am letting them make off with my actual legal rights ond protections.

Sorry for derailing. Every time I look at this thread, I just feel so much for Stephanie, and the position that she was put in.

I just keep coming back to this part of the interview - and also noticing the ratio of Stephanie's words to Debbie's words.

This is Stephanie saying: "Even if you have to leave, even if you have to walk out, I think maybe we need to separate because I can't cope with it anymore,' and Debbie said, 'Okay if that's what you want, then that's what we'll do.'

But my daughter was about two months away from her first set of significant School exams, which are taken at age 16 in Britain.

And so two weeks later, we went back on a Thursday evening to this local arts centre and
Debbie said, 'I've been thinking and I'm not going to move out. I want to stay' and at that point, I really just felt, 'Well, I've got nothing here. All along, you've been saying that, if necessary, you will leave and eventually I've got to the point of saying okay, you need to leave. And you're now saying you refuse.'

So again, actually that was a turning point for Debbie. I think Debbie realized that if she wanted to stay within the family, she needed to actually start thinking about the family a little bit more, rather than just what she wanted and how she was going to do things. And after that, I started having a little bit more of a say and Debbie would ask my opinion about things and I felt that my opinion was actually making a small amount of difference, maybe not huge, but a small amount of difference. And we got through my daughter's exams and, at that point, you know, it was then three months after I'd said, 'I think you need to leave'. And things were better, though a long way from perfect but much better than that very, very low point.

@Datun That is exactly what I am saying. Transexual women have been sharing my toilet spaces for my entire adult life. I have met them in clubs, pubs , public toilets and work toilets. This is not new. As far as I can tell the current legislation backs this up, perhaps I am wrong on this and maybe it has been illegal for them to access toilets all along but I don't think so and they have been. I don't think it is an affront to anyones dignity or safety.

"We do not agree to men in our spaces. And whether you feel that is acceptable or not, or whether you understand that or not, is irrelevant.The answer is no. Because they are our spaces. Ours to gate keep. Not Debbie's, or India's, or Tara's, or Jan's."

I agree they should be, but I think you underestimate how far this ideology has spread and just repeating the mantra is the same as a TRA repeating TWAW. Standing guard at a gate when someone has just removed the boundary fence.

Al77

Forgive me if I am getting this wrong, because I don't find your posts particularly straightforward. But are you saying the same as Debbie Hayton? In that post op transwomen should be acceptable, at least in some women's spaces?

Because they're post op?

And that women who object are like Mary Whitehouse/prudes?

I ask this, because you will find tw like India Willoughby demanded that the criteria for access should be whether a transwoman 'passes', or ex convict Tara Hudson, complete with '7 inch surprise' saying it's about when a male transitions, or we've had plenty of transwomen on here saying it should only be if you are in the possession of a GRC, irrespective of passing, surgery, or longevity.

It feels, certainly to me, and in the words of someone more eloquent than I, that this is just a question of the boot placed on the neck of women, being incrementally adjusted, according to the various whims of different male born individuals and whatever criteria they personally, and very specifically, possess at the time. Be it the way they look, what operations they've had, what paperwork they've acquired or at what precise time they transitioned.

It would appear I'm going to have to say this again.

Women. Are. Human.

We are fully fledged members of the human race. And with the same identical status as males.

We do not agree to men in our spaces. And whether you feel that is acceptable or not, or whether you understand that or not, is irrelevant.

The answer is no. Because they are our spaces. Ours to gate keep.

Not Debbie's, or India's, or Tara's, or Jan's.

Ours.

This, though:

Whilst women make up 5% of the prison population, around 25% of self-harm incidences occur in the female estate.

This is so profoundly shocking. A quarter of all self harm incidents committed by women, who make up only a twentieth of the prison population.

Thank you, KPSS, for highlighting this along with so much else, for all your amazing work in this area.

including whether or not Transexuals or Transgender individuals are worthy of acceptance generally or entry into toilets at conferences. Or are we just arguing whether or not they are horrible people, because that is getting into dodgy territory.

How on earth do you get there??

How is saying you don’t wish to allow people access to female spaces because they’re male in any way saying they’re “horrible people”??

Unless you think all males are de facto horrible people? In which case I would beg to differ, sitting as I am right now with a couple of perfectly nice male people.

Of course male people should be allowed to use public toilets. Just not the female ones.

The case of trans widows is uniquely awful. I would wish not wish it on anyone, but neither would I wish AGP on anyone. Neither side had much choice.

All adults have choices about how they treat other people, especially their partner and children.

November 3rd2020 Uncommon Ground Media article by Dr Em (linked previously)
'Domestic Abuse Related to Late-Transitioning Partners, Part I: Coercive Control'

(extract)
"After much feminist pressure, coercive control is recognised as a form of domestic abuse and psychological violence in U.K. law: ‘Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship’. What could be more coercive than repeatedly claiming your partner’s sense of reality, understanding of science and anatomy (that humans cannot change sex), was wrong? That what these women see, what these women feel, what these women know, is untrue because he says so? The Government definition outlines that: “Controlling behaviour is a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.”

Trans widows’ stories certainly fit this definition and what we understand is domestic abuse. The term ‘trans widows’ was coined by partners of ‘transitioning’ males to express how it felt like the death of the man they fell in love with. The blogger Naefearty describes her experience:

I used to have an online friend (also a partner of a man who thought he was a woman) who likened the experience of being partnered to a transgender to the frog who is put into the pot of water and the heat gradually turned up till cooked—a deliberate programme of de-sensitisation as each limit is compromised or ignored, and each line in the sand crossed by these men in their “journey.”

Many trans widows accounts include stories of bullying, isolation and escalation. As we know from domestic violence, many women will cover the bruises, stand next to their partner and say everything is fine, adding that “he loves me.” It is important that we are alert to the common patterns of behaviour. (continues)

uncommongroundmedia.com/domestic-abuse-related-to-late-transitioning-partners-part-i-coercive-control/

Part 2
uncommongroundmedia.com/domestic-abuse-related-to-late-transitioning-partners-part-ii-gaslighting-patterns-of-behaviour/

Part 3
uncommongroundmedia.com/agp-males-domestic-abuse-part-iii-sexual-abuse/

The Freedom Programme provides resources to understand coercive control and support for all women impacted:
www.freedomprogramme.co.uk/

Similar arguements about safety were used about gay men and lesbians using public toilets only a few decades ago, people worried about the dangerous sexual predators hiding in plain sight.

I'm as old as the hills and I've never known any public worry about lesbians using women's toilets. I'm sure this is a recently invented made up fact.

My basic views for example are set out here:

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/a-plea-for-help-for-feminists-from-a-trans-widow

"Thank you for educating me about Trans Widows"

Well I would have said discussing and responding to the points made by other posters and stating my slightly differing opinions on how best to deal with a threat we all acknowledge, but ok.

You wouldn't use Oscar Wilde's wife's experience as a reason for denying equal rights for Oscar Wilde.

The men we're discussing here already have equal rights.

If there were a practical chance of getting fully female toilets and a third space, I would vote for it (or better still male acceptance of Trans women in male spaces) but I think that it's unlikely in the short term.

Most men accept other males regardless of how they present. Men in women's spaces is the bigger problem.

I guess it comes down to, Are women just penis-less males or not?

If they are, then absolutely we should open up all women spaces to males without penises. It must also be made mandatory that any male who has lost his penis gets issued a GRC certificate and a new birth certificate as with the loss of their penis, they are now a women. We need accurate data for sex discrimination purposes after all.

If not, and woman is a thing outside just being a penis-less male then males, penis-less or not must be kept away from women only spaces for the safety, dignity, privacy and inclusion of all female people.

Whoops. Mary woodhouse not Barbara Woodhouse. That was a bit of a burn fail. Thanks :)

"Just checking Al77 if you know anything at all about Trans Widows?"

The case of trans widows is uniquely awful. I would wish not wish it on anyone, but neither would I wish AGP on anyone. Neither side had much choice. Trans Widows have an incredibly powerful arguement for strict Marriage clauses in the GRA, but that has little bearing on any of the other areas of dispute, including whether or not Transexuals or Transgender individuals are worthy of acceptance generally or entry into toilets at conferences. Or are we just arguing whether or not they are horrible people, because that is getting into dodgy territory.

I don't think that the case for LGB rights is analogous with Trans issues, because I don't "believe" in gender identity or a gendered soul, but the Trans Widows issue is roughly analogous with the straight spouses of gay men before it was legalised and socially acceptable. You wouldn't use Oscar Wilde's wife's experience as a reason for denying equal rights for Oscar Wilde. It's a horrible situation but it is what it is and Debbie and Stephanie have shown it is possible to forge a relationship, even if it is platonic. It by no means speaks for all Trans Widows of course, highlights the need for not generalising though.

Similar arguements about safety were used about gay men and lesbians using public toilets only a few decades ago, people worried about the dangerous sexual predators hiding in plain sight.

Whether you can tell/ check what's in someones pants or not, what the law says on it is vital and is meaningful.

If there were a practical chance of getting fully female toilets and a third space, I would vote for it (or better still male acceptance of Trans women in male spaces) but I think that it's unlikely in the short term.

The only way out of any impasse is some degree of compromise, plus we need to play for time whilst the Social Justice Movement hangs itself with a noose of illogical, circular arguements. I am merely pointing out where I think a sensible boundary/line is over toilets, not that I have any right to impose a line on anyone else, but the line is already futher out than I am proposing. To me Debbie and other transexuals that the TRA's are harrasing and have called "Truscum" such as Blair White and that Aussie chick and loads of others, are upholding the binary, trying to hold the boundary line and are on the inside pushing out. We would be best served by welcoming them and joining forces against the "Self Iders", the "TWAWers", the "be kinders" and the identity politics police.

I know this thread has long since moved on from this point, but this has been bugging me so I gotta say it.

Any of us might have differing opinions on whether a particular couple's relationship can be defined as abusive and that's fine, we will never all agree 100%.

However, I don't agree that viewing person X's relationship as abusive necessarily means you are being patronizing or belittling them in some way. Because that implies that those who are targets of abuse and control (and don't leave the relationships immediately) are necessarily "weak" or disempowered and I vehemently disagree with that--although I agree it is a very common view of abuse victims.

Many tremendously strong and capable women spend years in an abusive or unhealthy relationship for a variety of reasons that are not because they are weak or foolish. I won't get into picking this apart because that would be massively tedious for you all, but I'll say that it's very similar to realizing that stating that someone has a mental health problem isn't necessarily an insult, as there SHOULD be nothing shameful or pathetic about having MH issues.

Unfortunately in both cases there is a great deal of pejorative weight with these terms but I hope that is changing for the better in our society.

Of course it's possible for someone to say "X is mentally ill" or "X is being abused" with patronizing intent. But I'd suspect that is not what was intended by anyone in this thread. And it's equally possible to make those two statements without being patronizing or belittling, but simply as a statement of what you, personally, see as the facts of a particular case.

Thank you for coming to my no-longer-relevant TED talk.

It's deeply unkind to women to not allow them privacy and dignity when they most need it.

But mainly I think It's just not strategic (and it is unkind...which is not a good strategy either). Fully accepting with open arms post op transexuals, is a virtually cost free concession in the "land grab" which is well underway (and not just in theory).

I think you are massively deluding yourself here. There is nothing "cost free" about pretending you can tell the difference between a transsexual with no penis and any other man in a dress.

This whole mess exists because people decided to be "kind" to men rather than considering women's needs.

What we need now are crystal clear boundaries.

Fuck me. So a poster on here thinks the only reason we don't allow men in women's spaces is because they might rape us. That's it.

Ugh, I feel sick that someone thinks women don't deserve privacy and dignity away from men when in states of undress.

[Stephanie] has made major compromises for (it seems primarily) her family. The other Hayton has, as so often with late transitioners, made precisely, err, none hmm

Not even after the mental health crisis reduced.

This is fairly tangential but I’ve worked with combat veterans who often lose their penis and testicles when they traumatically lose limbs, because they’re nice and squishy and disintegrate in the shock wave of an explosion.

For those who believe that “post op” trans women should be allowed into the women’s prison estate - because they have a paraphilia AND have no penis, do you suggest that men who don’t have a paraphilia but who are similarly without a penis should be allowed in, or not. And why?

But mainly I think It's just not strategic (and it is unkind...which is not a good strategy either). Fully accepting with open arms post op transexuals, is a virtually cost free concession in the "land grab" which is well underway (and not just in theory).

A177 There is an important and illuminating thread worth reading which provides background to the history of the 'landgrab'.

AngryAttackKittens wrote:
I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

is a virtually cost free concession in the "land grab" which is well underway

By which you mean virtually cost free to you and people like you who you know. It's not cost free at all to a number of females, who would probably appreciate you not graciously handing over their rights on the grounds that you don't personally need or understand them.

And how has 'concessions' worked out generally for females in response to this landgrab over the past few years? This was the original concession that has led us to this point of it being plain and obvious that any male at all simply means all males. That door has been forced to the widest extent possible. It's long past plain that hoping for giving a little to gain a little, or indeed hoping for any sense of reciprocal care or respect or consideration is a very false hope indeed.