Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview transcript

feelings are a poor reason for breaking that policy

I thought feelings were a valid reason for creating law that benefited the wants of men when it suits them even if this goes against material reality.

Silly me, its just women who aren't allowed valid feelings but then given the above mentioned interview this attitude isn't anything new, and just highlights the underlying privilege and view of women being less important.

Very revealing that comment.

“Female” is another of those words that is in the process of being severed from its actual meaning.

Who does that benefit?

Brava, Datun. Well said.

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics.

Males modifying their sex characteristics doesn't give them female sex characteristics.

This is just women not being considered actual human beings again.

We are real you know. Female sex characteristics have evolved to do a specific job. Modifying male characteristics has got nothing to do with that.

We're not just props, for goodness sake. Something to emulate to legitimise an inner feeling.

We're real humans. With the same status and legitimacy as male humans.

Take the penis off a male, inject some synthetic hormones and they still display typical male behaviors and entitlement.

Debbie is proof of that. Males -no matter what body modifications they have done to themselves- must not be allowed in female spaces, especially where vulnerable females may be trapped, like prisons.
Shocking that this has to be said.

This.

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics

This is a very muddled sentence, Debbie.

Particularly when juxtaposed with this

feelings are a poor reason for breaking that policy

It may well be that you feel that you have female sex characteristics, and I’ve no doubt this is a deeply and sincerely held belief, but that doesn’t make it a fact.

It was an astonishingly poorly judged tweet, but it’s not that that worries me- it’s the fact that it speaks to the underlying thought process. The logical outcome of letting some male bodies into women’s spaces because of their beliefs about themselves, can only ever end with letting all male bodies into those spaces, because of the impossibility of an external arbitration of how sincerely held those beliefs are. It’s logically consistent, and it’s why women are so concerned about this. Mixed sex everything; prisons, sports, groups.

I had previously surmised that your interest in drawing a line was to draw it behind yourself such that you could continue to access such spaces and considerations as you were used to, but this statement calls that into doubt, with its utter disregard of what women may want.

I think it would be very appropriate to ask DH about surgery, btw.

Why was it "inappropriate" to ask DH about surgery - so it wasn't asked - but fine to ask SH if she's now a lesbian ??

My request to be housed in the female estate would be based on my sex characteristics.

The (presumably) absence of a penis does not equal having female sex characteristics.

Take the penis off a male, inject some synthetic hormones and they still display typical male behaviors and entitlement.

Debbie is proof of that. Males -no matter what body modifications they have done to themselves- must not be allowed in female spaces, especially where vulnerable females may be trapped, like prisons. Shocking that this has to be said.

But according to you I can only object to undressing in front of a man if he is able to rape me?

Oops, put an unable in there when it should have been able.

Anyway the point stands, it's fucking ridiculous that women's privacy to get changed is dependent on whether a man has a cock or not. Women's spaces are for women.

AI77 just curious whether you’ve meet Debbie Hatton? I wonder whether you would still regard them as a woman in person. I haven’t met Debbie Hayton just seen video of them walking but i have met several transwomen in real life and in the majority of cases their sheer difference in size to me makes it impossible for me to not keep being aware they are not the same sex as me. (This is not obvious to men as they are not being towered over.) The scale of everything together with the body language makes it a very different experience to standing beside a tall woman.

Any man who claims to identify with women whilst invading their spaces is abusive.

as far as I am concerned they are no longer male bodied. Not a man. That doesn't make a trans woman the same as a biological woman, but no sexual threat and to all intents and purposes a woman.

So the only criteria for concern for a man to be in a women's space is that he can't rape a woman?

I can't believe we're having the toilets argument again. But maybe we could make it a changing room argument this time.

If I walk in to the women's changing room at my local swimming pool and see a man in there would you expect me to object? I certainly would.

Now I go in there and there is a man wearing makeup and a dress. I have no idea whether he has a penis or not, and frankly, I don't care. I still see a man and he should not be in there.

But according to you I can only object to undressing in front of a man if he is physically unable to rape me?

I don't know if you come across transgender people very often but I do, at various places I go out, I see men who say they are women. I still see men and don't know or care where they are on their journey to become a non-man it's not possible to change sex and they should not be in women's facilities.

regardless she already has the legal right to use female toilets and has had since 2010

What section of the EA are you referring to here?

@Clymene Yes, I read the transcript and I have been following Debbie's work for a while via the Spectator and on her blog. On her blog she goes into much more detail, she admits to and apologises for the hurt she caused her wife whilst in the powerful grip of Autogynephilia and goes on to reflect about what was going on in her head at the time in a way she couldn't see before the surgery. She does not strike me as narcissist, just in the powerful grip of a paraphilia.

I think Debbie H. advocates for a third space, but regardless she already has the legal right to use female toilets and has had since 2010. Under current laws, trans people have a default right to use whichever single-sex area they choose, but can be turned away if doing so can be justified as proportionate.

I think rather than focusing on trying to roll back existing legislature ,which in the current climate seems unrealistic, we need to prevent further erosion of sex based rights, conflation of sex and gender and blurring of the sex binary.

I don't personally feel threatened by trans women in public spaces, but no my consent and boundaries do not overide anybody elses. That particular boundary of public facilities no longer exists though.

I guess I don't have a hard line on post op transexuals at all, I think they are utterly caught in the crossfire and if they have surgically removed their male genitalia, fashioned themselves the primary sex characteristics of a woman, and legally changed their gender via a GRC after rigourous medical and psychological assessment as far as I am concerned they are no longer male bodied. Not a man. That doesn't make a trans woman the same as a biological woman, but no sexual threat and to all intents and purposes a woman.

I am quite hardline about self id/GRC/any sort of legal recognition without medical and psychological assessment. I think participation in competative sports is a no brainer, is cheating and should be outright banned but my main concern is about the ideological shift away from liberal values of free speech and debate ,the bullying, intimidating and silencing tactics of the Social Justice Movement, the stifling of academia and scientific research, the reach and influence of Stonewall on companies, non govermental public organisations and the ex post facto changes to policy happening everywhere under the guise of inclusivity. All of which Debbie is helping with.

Awesome that I can disagree with out being silenced, shamed or physically assaulted though.

Oh yes I remember that article.

I think it points out alot of stuff we'd get deleted if we wrote on here which if course makes being able to make some points very difficult..

Also this from Julia Long

uncommongroundmedia.com/a-meaningful-transition-julia-long/

Yes theres alot i/we could say with regards to that and several examples i could mention however I erred on the side of caution

This is a very illuminating thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

I'm using pronouns based on perceived sex and material reality as he supports in this article: www.rt.com/op-ed/504802-neo-pronouns-social-engineering/ where he warns against the 'worrying' message that "Pronouns should not be chosen by the observer on the evidence of what they see, but imposed by the subject on the basis of how they claim to feel about themselves. This is a massive leap from how we used to use pronouns (and most adults probably still do). They cease to describe material reality, and instead label identities. Why is the BBC doing this to our children?"

Also, can I ask what definition of the word “woman” you’re using?

Certainly not one that is meaningful to me.