Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

I'd also pulled out a page from the times and stuck it in the tes, by Andrew Gilligan, about the two children who were transitioned in foster care very quickly. 12th May 2019.

I feel quite sick reflecting on how much the wool was pulled over my eyes, appeasing me with mentions of TT and girls' sports whilst actually, it's all TRA "business as usual," which is a direct quote from the tes article.

The section in the DSM does talk about female partners of AGP men. Quite surprising to see it all written out quite clearly. It talks about the dynamics, although I suppose it falls short of describing how this is often part of an abusive/coercive dynamic.

What I don't understand is why Janice Turner decided to use pronouns when Debbie does not expect them, and when Debbie is very clear that he is a man? It does seem very gratuitous.

Perhaps she is trying to show that she is 'reasonable' and is capable of holding to a Labour Party 'middle way' position?

It's the conclusion that particularly got to me at the time. Now I know it's because the whole thing was written as if safeguarding children but in reality is a safeguarding nightmare.

Teachers tend to read the Guardian and the TES.

I remember when I was still rather green to things like agp, buying the TES with DH's article in it. And being 'grateful' as it was the first time I'd seen anyone raising a few issues around the harm to children. Specifically because he mentions the transgender trend guide as being the most sensible and mentions single sex sports and spaces for girls.

Though, when I read the whole article I was it doubt about a few aspects and rather perplexed as to how to think about it, but couldn't put my finger on it.

Just pulled it out; 10th May 2019.

"Supporting transgender students: what you need to know."

Reading through now I can see exactly what the issues are. There's a few things thrown in for "us" and the rest is still affirmation and a very muddled interpretation of law.

He's heavily in to pronouns in it. And boys wearing girls' clothes including swim suits.

The one thing I do know is that DH will be enjoying all this attention.

it’s annoying - we can’t even say “eeeewww” without fuellling a tingle in a cock. Humiliation fetish is a thing I cannot get my head around. I know the best thing to do is to ignore these creepy fuckers, but I also know that fetishistic behaviour escalates and intervening means I become wank fodder. They can all fuck off.

Well, it's not but we (the general public) have been well groomed for years.

I can't understand how this person is a teacher - I would not want my children to be involved in any adult's sex life in any way or to be giving a man a sexual thrill by having to call him 'Miss' - how is this acceptable in society?

the people most likely to give you the facts of this are transwidows.

It's got to be bloody galling that they are the last people to be consulted.

Yes it is.

I mentioned this on the other Hayton thread but I think it's worth mentioning here too. KJK's latest video hits the nail on the head for me.

AGP requires an audience, and much of it depends on the response of other people.

Yes. And of course, the people most likely to give you the facts of this are transwidows.

It's got to be bloody galling that they are the last people to be consulted.

I wish people like Janice Turner and Andrew Doyle would interview them.

But yes, of course, if there is any aspect to a fetish that relies on the general public's unwitting (and unwilling), participation, then how do you address that, when you've bloody put it in the equality act.

And, it has to be said, that many women have seen this for ten or more years. Seen the progress that transactivists have made in order to repackage a paraphilia, as either an innate essence, a medical condition, a mental health issue or even a lifestyle choice, (whilst wriggling out of each those descriptions whenever they're inconvenient).

It's my understanding that the original intention was that doctors would be able to differentiate between AGP men, and non-AGP men. And that would sort out the gatekeeping both in terms of treatment, and also in terms of signing off for a GRC.

Well we know the treatment aspect is completely out the window. Anyone can get it. And also, the GRC. The Internet does, and always has, abounded with the exact wording to use for your doctor, in order to get their signature.

And yes, AGP is not a sexual orientation directed inwards. It's a paraphilia. And paraphilias are known to cluster.

It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I've read enough to know that some of the comorbid paraphilias are things like voyeurism, exhibitionism, etc.

Plus we know that men with an addiction like AGP are more likely to have a personality disorder, the most common of which is narcissism. Known for its coercive control.

This is not a sexual orientation.

https://archive.org/details/diagnosticstatis0005unse/page/702/mode/2up

Borrowable on archive.org.

Differentiates between Gender Dysphoria, Fetishism, and Autogynephilia. Also notes 'often found in association with other paraphilias'.

AGP requires an audience, and much of it depends on the response of other people. As we know, that might involve both positive and negative responses. Some of it is about shame, or invoking shock, and some of it is invoking 'fawn' responses.

All of that depends on other people, but it also - as far as I understand it - depends on those other people not giving full and informed consent.

Happy to be corrected on that, but that's my understanding.

Fetishism can be involved on inanimate objects, but cross dressing in public is transvestic fetishism and the 'public' part is integral.

I think, Datun, the key aspect is whether AGP is being presented as a solitary pursuit - that a man is just interested in his own presentation and imagination of himself as a woman.

In reality, this fetish most often involves others being involved - and the crux of the matter - involved non-consensually.

How is this going to work?

The authorities are going to have to be confronted with the fact that they've legitimised a fetish. Given it civil rights, in fact. Protected it.

You get men who can explain to you exactly what AGP involves (not Debbie H). Are you going to allow them to be teachers, or kindergarten workers? Letting children, and the general public, feed their fetish? Telling them, in fact, that they must do so. Or are you going to say no, and have to address the big fat elephant in the equality act that would call it discrimination?

In interviews, men like Debbie Hayton will definitely have made sure they weren't going to be asked too many awkward questions or, as Utopia says above, have refined, finessed, and perfected their evasive answers. (And for anyone not quite appreciating the amount of manipulation that goes into doing that, hopefully her post would have clarified it).

And enough women know now. Men like Hayton will be asked directly, to confirm, or deny, to be accountable and define and how hot, exactly, are you willing to let your feet get with that fire.

And if they refuse to be held accountable, then, that, as ever, speaks for itself.

Depends if its additive or reductive, I suppose? I kind of imagined the person quoted meant the person was 20% 'less male' after an op.

Edit: Maybe the term I'm looking for is 'subtractive', but this is gendermaths, so who knows.

Yep.

We're going to have to spell out very clearly the difference between a fetish and an orientation.

I'd have said this had all been firmly established in medical literature, but then we have seen 'gender dysphoria' get reclassified as not a mental health issue, but somehow still requiring medical treatment, so who knows.

'T' as a sexual orientation is coming up next.

The marigolds?

I did enjoy that. What does the 20% apply to?!

Yes, ultimately this seems to be about force teaming the T with the LGB again. Janice has done so much to raise awareness and fight back against the TRA agenda but can’t seem to see what’s going on here because of the seemingly sensible approach to third spaces.

"80% male" is such a hilariously precise and wrong figure

It’s a shit show. And an ongoing issue now wrapped up with same sex marriage.

An ecumenical matter, I suppose.

From: https://archive.is/fhUiS

Not long back, I found an article written in 2000 about the first male transitioning vicar in the CoE. I don't think it would be printed that way now. It's an interesting read.

article

When the Reverend Carol Stone took to the pulpit in Swindon on Sunday she was making history as Britain's first sex-change vicar. She has been applauded by many in the church for her bravery and has the backing of her bishop. But, as IAN FANNON reports, there are others who will never accept her need for a new identity.
SENIOR clergyman Andrew Hetherington has spoken of his opposition to the decision to allow the Reverend Carol Stone to remain in the church.
And he claims to represent the view of many Christians who have so far remained silent on the issue.
The Reverend Hetherington, team rector for the West Swindon and Lydiards parish, believes gender re-assignment is against Christian morals.

He says Ms Stone who was called Peter Stone before his operation this summer should stand down from the ministry.

Mr Hetherington has made his views public after fellow church leaders in his parish which includes Baptist, Church of England, Methodist and United Reformed Church denominations said they shared his concern.

The churches in the parish are Holy Trinity Church in Shaw, All Saints in Lydiard Millicent, St Mary's in Lydiard Tregoze, Toothill Church and Westlea Church.

Ms Stone made her first public appearance since the operation on Sunday when she returned to the pulpit at St Philip's Church in Stratton St Margaret.

She received a standing ovation from the 100-strong congregation, who have fully backed her decision along with the Bishop of Bristol, the Right Reverend Barry Rogerson.

But Mr Hetherington, vicar of Holy Trinity Church, said: "In my pastoral ministry, there are people I meet who have deep inner urges which it would be wrong to give in to, such as harming themselves.
"I'm not suggesting her urges should have been suppressed, but that she should have sought help and counselling instead of going ahead with the operation.

"If she was still unhappy, she should, as a Christian, have accepted that not everything can be put right in this world.
"She may feel better now, but people often say they feel better on drugs in the long run, what has changed? She is still 80 per cent male."
Mr Hetherington said he was disappointed that the clergy in Swindon were not asked their opinion on the issue before Bishop Rogerson gave it his approval.

He claimed that after the historic announcement was made, at least 20 clergymen from across the town expressed their disagreement with her decision to the Bishop.

"I have deep compassion for someone with such inner urges, but this should not be acceptable in the Christian faith and she should stand down," he said.
"We're still part of a society that needs moral boundaries, otherwise society devolves into selfishness. Her action was largely selfish.
"As a Christian leader, she should have set an example, because our leaders need to uphold moral standards and she has failed in this duty."

The Evangelical Alliance, a national church organisation representing one million Christians in Britain, has also condemned gender re-assignment.

A member of the alliance, Swindon pastor John Tait, from the King's Christian Centre in Old Town, said: "If she'd been in our alliance, she wouldn't have been allowed to retain ministerial status.
"There has been a lot of publicity supporting her decision, but it needs some Christian balance, because the Church of England is way out on a limb on this issue."

Ms Stone declined to respond, but a spokesman for the Bristol diocese, the Reverend Stephen Oram, said there was no question of her standing down.

He said: "This is an issue about gender redesignation and not about Carol Stone. If clergy have difficulties with an issue, then they should discuss it with the diocese or church authorities.

"She has no intention of resigning her post and certainly not as a result of such comments."
At Sunday's service, one woman had to be escorted from the church after an outburst against Ms Stone.

Afterwards, the vicar who married twice and fathered a child said: "It would have been naive of me to assume that everyone would be as happy as others are and that is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life."