Debbie and Stephanie Hayton interview transcript

Sorry BiologyNotBigotry I meant to answer your other point with my view! Not that my view is worth a whole lot but as a Christian I can see how church can sometimes encourage people to stay together. I have seen it but not done it to others.

"I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows."

I can 100% see this and totally agree. I think having supported a partner initially I would want the spouse to be able to say, actually I said this was OK so far but I didn't really feel it was OK, I just felt I had no choice! Or it was OK in the past but not now.

So I do totally agree with you.

I've drawn these conclusions from what Stephanie, and also Debbie, said about the situation.

Debbie: "It's hard to remember, it was sudden in me that it became overwhelming, but I can't remember a single specific issue in me. I remember telling Stephanie at one point that there was a big struggle inside me, but again at the time I don't think I realized just how profound it actually was. And then when I started talking, the more I talked about it, the more the compulsion grew. Grew exponentially the more I was talking about it and that increased the feedback on me. So it was it was just becoming totally out of hand couldn't cope."

Stephanie: "My priority was 'Let's keep the family together. Let's keep the children safe."

Stephanie: "I didn't really understand what was going on, but it was going on very fast. So there was confusion. That was some anger, but I responded by very strongly trying to hold it together. And I think you know with that with hindsight maybe I didn't process my own emotions as well as I could have done at the time, but we got through it. And it was holding it together and particularly when Debbie was going through this really quite bad mental health and actually there was a possibility that in a month's time, Debbie might have committed suicide. So I'm living with all of that at the time as well. And it was just, 'Well, let's keep it going for the children, let's hold it together, we're okay for now."

I could be wrong, it's just a hunch. The church does do a lot of potentially hurtful things but here I saw the church and school as a source of support.

For me the key things were not her being part of a church but more a desire to protect the children, I presume from the mental health issues of Debbie, and to protect Debbie from suicide - and to protect the children from that prospect.

Having a suicidal person in the family if terrifying. It is awful to worry that person will be successful and awful to worry about what impact that could have on the rest of the family.

BiologyNotBigotry "From a Christian perspective, I can see why staying together might seem the default position. I don't know anything about what denomination they're from, or how long she's been a Christian but I was brought up to place a huge importance on the sanctity of marriage & working passed any issues or mistakes if at all possible."

She mentions being on the PCC ("A parochial church council (PCC) is the executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the laity.") This says she is part of an Anglican church and presumably quite involved to be on the PCC.

Anglicans can have quite varying views on marriage. Some almost like your traditional Roman Catholic view that it is for life, and others much more liberal. I am not a liberal Anglican but I am an Anglican and have a more liberal view on marriage.

I don't know but I wonder if the overriding factor was the fact that Debbie was suicidal.

"I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows.

I concur, Biology. Personally I think the issue of coercive abuse within Christian marriage is something to be highlighted and pushed back against, and I am full of respect for the Christisn women I know who do just that.

From a Christian perspective, I can see why staying together might seem the default position. I don't know anything about what denomination they're from, or how long she's been a Christian but I was brought up to place a huge importance on the sanctity of marriage & working passed any issues or mistakes if at all possible. I can see how someone might accept the initial revelation & hope it can be resolved quietly & then, having said they accept that, feel obliged to continue being supportive of a further small step, & another... until they've gone so far along the path that it seems more difficult to announce "actually, I'm not ok with this", so they stay because nothing "worse" has happened to pin it on. I can also see how someone might see it as part of the "in sickness & in health" part of the vows.

I'm not saying I agree with that. Personally, I have less tolerance for "making it work" than some people I know! I'm just saying, I can see how that might be someone's default position if they're approaching it from a Christian perspective.

I don't think any woman (or man) ever needs to stay in an unhappy marriage but I can see why Stephanie stayed initially. I guess I just hope she continues to stay only if it really is right for her

I so totally agree.

Stephanie is well-blessed with grace. I wish her the strength to do what is right for her. I also wish her peace with her decision.

Relevant thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

thirdfiddle "Two things that struck me strongly.

I found it quite chilling listening to Stephanie talking about the early stages of her marriage and referring to her then husband as Debbie. That felt like someone having been totally gaslighted (gaslit?)."

I honestly think when you start to talk about someone with a new name it is kind of second nature to use that name even going backwards and speaking about them in the past when that name didn't apply.

So I agree, yes, "Maybe it just comes naturally when you are still close to someone under a different name."

I felt really sorry for Stephanie and also for Debbie.

The thing that struck me was wondering how much staying together was a default or a choice.

The interviewer asks "And so you guys obviously you decided to stay married and I wonder, and I want to address this question to Stephanie first. Was this kind of like a default choice or was this an active choice on your part where you're like, 'I want to keep the family together'. Did you get to a place where you were like, 'Okay, I'm good with the marriage again, despite those rocky years during transition where I was kind of the glue holding it together'. How did you come down on staying together?"

Stephanie replied "I've been thinking about this quite a bit over the last few days since knowing this was coming up. If I'm honest, it was a default position, but it was a default position that I actively chose, that I did want, if I could hold the family together then I wanted to do that. Obviously now, we're in a situation where all three children will have left home in a couple of days’ time. And so it just raises the question again, 'Well, is that still the default position?' and for me it is yes. It has been a rocky road, but there is an awful lot of shared history now, which is important to me, and we're looking ahead longer now one point. As I said, at one point, I said, 'Can I get through the next three hours?' whereas now we're looking ahead and saying, well five years’ time, 10 years’ time, 20 years’ time, what will it be like? So we can see ahead further into the future."

I just don't really understand how much was a default and how much was a choice but I really wish Stephanie all the very best. And I guess, by default, that must mean I wish Debbie all the very best too. (Actually, I do).

I don't think any woman (or man) ever needs to stay in an unhappy marriage but I can see why Stephanie stayed initially. I guess I just hope she continues to stay only if it really is right for her.

Until recently I would have only used the polite adjectives "stunning and brave" in respect of Debbie Hayton and Kellie Maloney. Now I also apply them to Phillip Schofield. Behind every male with a tortured identity lies a very strong woman. This interview has increased my admiration for Stephanie - her children are very lucky to have such a tremendous mother.

Debbie Hayton has always just been out to bat for Debbie Hayton. Even speaking out for women in the trans debate isn't actually for women. Hayton is protecting Hayton, not least from the backlash if it comes.

I’ve only really known about Debbie from twitter basically. And in the context of disagreeing with the TRAs.. this has opened my eyes up to them a lot and really, he’s not any different to the rest is he? I’m thankful that there is a prominent trans voice against the craziness but it seems he’s a bit of a twat too really. It disgusts me that he didn’t leave when asked to and when he said he would of asked, twice. I feel for Stephanie and she’s a grown woman and able to make her own choices but I feel like she has given up her entire life for one mans mental health issues. And it seems he still isn’t taking on some of that strain for her, even though he knows she’s struggling. I feel a bit sick if I’m honest.

Yes Datun we all know that the biggest indicator of a person’s future behaviour is their past behaviour, so if we take into consideration Dh’s treatment of his wife and family, plus his ongoing avoidance in addressing the NASUWT guidance he helped to write, I think the question above is pretty comprehensively answered.

Stephanie was waking up in the morning thinking, "Can I make it to 11am?" for quite some time

I thought that part of the interview was particularly upsetting. 6 weeks to 2 months just trying to keep going. The impact on Stephanie of this was huge, and in the end she gets to be friends with the person who put her through it.

Second: How many times did he pretend he was thinking about his wife, but then demonstrate that he’d lied?

“I won’t do it because you’re more important“
... waits for Stephanie to say, “oh no dear, you must!”
...that reaction is not forthcoming “I’m going to anyway.”

“I’ll leave if that’s what you want,”
“I’d like you to leave now.”
“Not going to.”

This part of the relationship was unequivocally abusive.

This interview, to my mind, is very revealing. Maybe a lot more than Debbie meant it to be.

My question is still that whilst writing columns, being interviewed, and quoted as campaigning for women to be recognised as a sex in their own right, and to have protection in their own spaces, is Debbie still determined to have their cake and eat it, by accessing those spaces himself for some reason?

Because, according to this interview, respecting boundaries doesn't seem to be something that Debbie has done, to date.

I’d add that all of this is not just what DH is doing to Stephanie; DH is also telling all gender criticals all of this. All these small admissions bring made.

Add to that the admission made a while back of being an autogynophile.

DH is grooming all of us.
This cannot be emphasised enough.

In short, he knows his presence is depriving his wife of something that she grieves for the loss of but he still chooses not to relieve her of the responsibility he has placed on her. That is not unwitting cruelty, that is conscious and calculated abuse.

Brutal, but accurate summary.

One of the things I was really struck by was both Stephanie and Debbie talking quite a lot about Debbie's poor mental health when transitioning, while Stephanie was waking up in the morning thinking, "Can I make it to 11am?" for quite some time but neither seem to really name the impact that Debbie's transitioning had/has on Stephanie's mental health.

It's interesting that Stephanie has chosen now to do a longer interview in public (she was very moving in the Stella Mc documentary). Her youngest child has just gone to university and maybe this gives her some time and space to process her own experience, rather than help her husband and children process theirs.

Thanks Michelle. I had to stop what I was writing to deal with something, but I absolutely agree. My point was that these men don’t have any genuine interest in changing. They may say they do, just as they create plausible lies about other things, but they don’t.

Bancroft also mentions how such men often give many reasons as to why they behave in these ways that harm their partners and families: they're often very good at it, it's misdirected rage left over from a troubled childhood, she represents his mother, he has anger issues.... Bancroft notes that when unpicked, this is never the bottom line. The man is usually perfectly capable of managing their anger and behaviour when it suits them to do so, for example when to display it would put their job at risk. He states that males treat their partners in this way for two reasons: they feel entitled to do so, and they successfully get away with it. The behaviour works very nicely for them.

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

But someone who genuinely acknowledges what they have done, and is genuinely contrite, would take whatever action was necessary to work out how to stop. That might obviously involve getting outside help with any psychological problems from your childhood that you are harbouring.

How many of these men actually go and ask for help unless they are forced into it? Lundy Bancroft suggests that he only sees men who were required to get help, either because they were given an ultimatum by their partner, or by the courts.

Oxyiz

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. DH may well know exactly what the problem is, while also being unable to step out of those patterns personally.

It’s not a case of DH recognising the behaviours but being unable to stop them, it’s a case of him recognising the behaviours that are of benefit to him and choosing to actively continue them. He admits himself that he was a shit, but he also admits that he wanted his cake and to eat it, wanted his transition and his home and family life as well. He acted in the way that he did because it was what he wanted, and he knew that he could keep pushing his wife’s boundaries without consequence. He said himself that when he met opposition he would push harder. Where else would we see women told that it wasn’t abuse for a man to ignore a no and to push harder? His wife’s first and most important priority was to keep the family together and make sure the DC were ok and he knew that, and instead of making it easier on his family he actively and consciously chose to push harder and harder, and now the only time we hear from his wife is with him by her side, where he can direct the narrative and manipulate it to make it look as if he is the victim and she is the unfortunate wife caught in the crossfire.

None of this was accidental on DH’s part. You can’t destroy your marriage, your wife’s life and plunge your family into that amount of turmoil without realising it. If DH had actually given even the tiniest of fucks how his wife and DC felt he wouldn’t have done the things that he now openly admits to, and he wouldn’t be openly admitting to them unless yet again, he could see some benefit to his doing so.

There is a big difference between being unwittingly cruel then realising your mistake and trying to atone for it, and actively being cruel and continuing even when you know the cost to other people. DH could still choose to leave if he wanted. he knows his wife misses being in a relationship with a man and that it’s a great grief to her yet he still chooses to stay. he knows the DC have all flown the nest now so staying together for the DC is no longer necessary yet he still chooses to stay. In short, he knows his presence is depriving his wife of something that she grieves for the loss of but he still chooses not to relieve her of the responsibility he has placed on her. That is not unwitting cruelty, that is conscious and calculated abuse.