Thank you: Debbie Hayton in the Mail

Now it's so easy to order things over the internet, I wonder if less stealing of sisters/ Mums/off neighbours washing lines, clothing goes on.

Coming back to the chat a few pages back about how there must be someone out there with a Nora Batty fetish…

I cannot see how finding out your husband is not sexually attracted to you but attracted to the idea of being you can be anything other than horrific. Surely that is always abusive? It’s marriage under false pretences

Speculation about why he hangs around places where he isn’t wanted like here get deleted so I won’t speculate but I think we can guess what one of his other redacted word here is

It may well have happened, but about 8-10 years later than claimed.

Yeah I'll take "Things that didn't happen" for 50 points please Bob

And the kitchen scraps in the story provide a readymade overlay of disgust. Hmm.
I'm not wasting any more time trying to work out how reliable I think this narrator is.

I've read the bit about the tights. I thought it was a laundry bin or at least a bathroom bin. Out of the kitchen bin? Age 5? From underneath peelings, teabags 'and worse'? Yeah, right. My mum always took her laddered tights off in the kitchen and threw them in the kitchen bin along with food scrapings. Not.

Well, who knew Dr Hayton isn't popular with all gender critical people eh?

(I wonder who Maya might have listened to, in order to change her mind 👀).

.

STOP MAKING ME THINK HORRIBLE THINGS!

It would be lovely once in a while to get an article from the 99/100 transgender people who support trans rights, but that's not how the Mail rolls. Debbie is a duplicitous and self-serving pick-me with a new book to sell. She has changed her driving license and passport to be female.

And Debbie is not entirely popular with all gender critical people, such as Forstater (who has changed her tune about her).

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

I can't imagine finding somebody else's pre worn skin coloured tights arousing. Stretched around the knees etc.

When I was a student I once walked down a busy city road with last nights tights accidentally attached to the Velcro on my messenger bag. I was mortified. I very much doubt anyone found it sexy.

Sceptical as I am about aspects of this particular revelation and therefore inclined to analyse it, I'm finding I really don't want to think about it too much. The image of putting on someone else's discarded tights, which in the 60s/70s were most likely flesh-coloured, is rather too close to trying on someone else's skin for me to want to picture it.

I know it’s not the main point, but for a scientist to use a childhood recollection of an emotion about an item who’s only significance comes from cultural and social norms as a piece of evidence for something so significant is just embarrassing for them.

Yes. And it may not sound quite as pervy as actual underwear.

Bingo 🎯

Yes. And it may not sound quite as pervy as actual underwear.

Or because there’s more thrill in talking about tights and getting readers to think of you putting on tights?

I haven't read it, but I'm really wondering about tights.

It's such an odd choice to broadcast.

Apart from anything else, any parent knows, trying to get a pair of tights on a five-year-old is difficult if you're an adult, much much less if they're trying to do themselves.

So why tights?

Why not shoes (a lot more accessible), or mum's lippy, or other clothes less underwear adjacent?

Could it be because most parents have had experience of boys trying all that stuff on? Because it's fairly common place and completely normal?

And darning.

Exactly. 50 years ago women weren't throwing tights away, willy-nilly.

that's what clear nail varnish was for

Is he trying to convince us that as a 5-year-old, he had this fetish? So every little boy who likes dressing up is a fetishist just like him? Is that where this is going?

He's replacing "born in the wrong body" with "born with a fetish". It's the AGP child replacing the trans child, in advance of gender ideology being dismantled.

You see what I said earlier about Hayton being strategic?

I'm sure someone already claimed that children's dress-up was 'childhood sexuality' manifesting itself on the board earlier in the week. It might even have been this thread.

How often was Mrs Hayton supposed to be throwing tights away, anyway? That review makes it sound like a twice-weekly event!

Is he trying to convince us that as a 5-year-old, he had this fetish? So every little boy who likes dressing up is a fetishist just like him? Is that where this is going?