Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

There is a very fine line between diplomacy and appeasement.

If calling a man she makes his willy tingle, I'd like to know what the justification for it is.

Sometimes I think there are people who, even though they know what AGP is, even though they are told, unequivocally what it does, they're still slightly sceptical.

Which I kind of get. What fucking idiot gets the horn from being called she.

But they do. They really, really do.

And it tingles even more if they've made you do it. And even more again, if they've made you do it whilst flatly disagreeing with the ideology.

That's certainly one angle........but it could also be that they understand a need for a certain level of diplomacy and practical, realistic politics in order to achieve their goals. The ideologues/ideologically pure can continue to occupy opposite ends of the spectrum as ideologues always do - but practical achievements sometimes necessitate certain types of compromise.

If the end goal is protecting the dignity, privacy and reality of women and girls in law, then revealing to people the nature of transgenderism furthers this cause. It is always helpful, I find, to listen to the stories of transitioners and detransitioners - to understand their thoughts and processes at different stages - because it reveals what transgenderism is made of.

Yes, we can certainly all feel angry for Stephanie and put ourself in her shoes; and we can see that how much Hayton's process and self definition have dominated the marriage and the lives of their children - but then so will the readers of the article.

I also certainly agree it is not right to impose one's fetishes on schoolchildren: we can all agree on that - and the end goal is to roll back from this madness; but I think we also have to accept it is going to be a long haul; it is going to take at least a coupe of decades to fully unravel.

At some point this crazy trend/ideology will diminish in strength and effect, though there will always be people who identify as the opposite sex, for whatever reason. Cross dressers are clearly large in number and have always been with us - but the elevation of this practice to the status of an imposed totalitarianism to which we must all bow down - will diminish.

It seems to be largely admonishing us for complaining about pronoun use. But also defending the puff-piece nature of the article; stating the Stephanie isn’t a victim because she’s choosing to stay with him; saying his dressing as a teacher at school isn’t a problem; saying that the public needs to know about AGP and this article does that effectively; stating that accommodations have to be made for and with these men; saying that complaining about the tone and photo in the article is being unnecessarily picky; and the usual "We’re not anonymous, we’re out here using our real names and we’ve suffered for our views".

Freeman dug up a 2013 tweet of KJK’s to make the point that KJK hasn’t always been anti-pronoun or as hardline as she’s been since starting LWS and accused KJK of brand building by criticising Janice.

Hmm. I haven't read all the admonitions- is it centering on pronouns? I say pronouns are not insignificant but not the thing itself - they are symptomatic of a problem with power balance.

Do we prioritise a man's sexual fetish/mental health issues, or do we prioritise biological reality and freedom of expression?

Having read recent admonitions from Hadley Freeman, Kathleen Stock et al towards women expressing anger and dissatisfaction with Janice’s article I think I’ve had a revelation: it feels like the 'head girls' will take the support of anonymous, non-establishment women for crowdfunders, hastags on Twitter and buying magazine subscriptions for their articles but ultimately what they really want is to be allowed back in from exile. They don’t want to make a new life with bolshy women trying to pull down the establishment mistakes, what they really want is their old social/academic/journalistic circle to accept them back while allowing them their difference of opinion. They are happy to signal that they’re still naice and largely-establishment by going along with polite pronoun use, publicly supporting Labour pronouncements on GI, stating that there’s a compromise position with AGPs, and scolding/distancing from the 'GC Ultras'.

I think they might actually be happier tinkering around the edges of the problem of gender ideology through seminars, conventions, and think pieces rather than wanting a full-throated female rejection of it.

I may very well be wrong in my theory but today it feels to me like they’re often ashamed of us for not 'behaving well' in public, they worry that we make them look bad - they’ll take our money but wish we’d let them all do the talking 🤔

Some of the deletions on MM are very sinister. What on earth are people so frightened of that they must report? I can only think people want to be able to totally control the narrative.

I'll repeat I can't get too worked up with loathing for Hayton. My main take is the article overall furthers the goals that I think are important; which is to reveal the true nature, in practice , of transgenderism, in particular transgenderism motivated by AGP. I think we can trust the public to read between the lines and intuit the nature and conditions of the marriage.

The pronoun use is certainly annoying - but i suspect one of Turner's main motivations is to vote Labour and she's on a mission to adjust her position on account of that.

Why on earth has my post been deleted?

He started baking bread and refusing to take the bins out.

Funny how he refused to take the bins out, presumably seeing as something unwomanly, meaning that the actual woman in the house had to take on the job. As well as all the other chores that don't constitute part of "living as a woman".

Off topic but I now want to know who takes the bins out in the Jolyon Maugham household. We know he bakes bread, he was recently offering sour dough starter to acolytes on X. 🤔

Oh no that is a silly tweet from Janice Turner. I take it allllll back. She’s usually spot on so I assumed the ‘she’ used here was just Times editorial policy (and it may be). But that tweet shows that you were quite right Datun. I was a bit shocked to see it.

How can anyone possibly think Hayton respects women?! When the sole reason Janice Turner is interviewing that person is because he literally fetishises, ‘others’ and therefore dehumanises women, quite obviously the literal opposite of respect.

What is it about him that she could have seen that possibly tells her that he respects women? Please, please tell me it’s not because he doesn’t use the women toilets that she finds him respectful?
I mean, that would be a a looooooooooow bar.
If men using the men’s toilets meant that they respected women, we’d have solved this whole misogyny thing centuries ago

Something had been snagging at my mind about the tights.

In his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas, Gustave Flaubert alphabetised some of the cliches and platitudes common among the French bourgeoisie during the 19th century. His aim, in his own words, was “the historical glorification of everything generally approved”. Under “Bandits”, he wrote: “Always Fierce.” Under “Materialism”: “Utter the word with horror, stressing each syllable.” Under “Tights”: “Sexually exciting.” And under “Woman”: “Person of sex. One of Adam’s Ribs.”

Were Flaubert to revive his Dictionary for the UK today, he might keep the bit about materialism. But presumably the “Woman” entry would now read: “Can have a penis. If one is a Labour MP, utter this sentiment with great conviction in interviews.”

https://unherd.com/2022/05/stella-creasys-bourgeois-feminism/?=frlh

In one of the Daily Mail articles earlier this week, there was an implicit reference to the children having to use female pronouns about DH in the presence of non-family members, in order to stave off accusations of transphobia.

I posted this on another thread but it’s relevant here too. Clymene transcribed a podcast interview with the Haytons, in 4 parts. Stephanie gets to say quite a bit in this one.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4053058-Debbie-and-Stephanie-Hayton-interview-transcript?reply=100925270

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4053058-Debbie-and-Stephanie-Hayton-interview-transcript?reply=100925438

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4053058-Debbie-and-Stephanie-Hayton-interview-transcript?reply=100925534

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4053058-Debbie-and-Stephanie-Hayton-interview-transcript?reply=100925597

I thought it was an interesting interview and I think Debbie is quite an interesting person. Certainly some selfish traits but I don't think they're an entirely bad person either. I think hearing Debbie's and Stephanie's experiences is interesting.

I also thought the thread with the article written by the psychologist who works with AGP males was interesting.

* goes and cowers in a corner *

I wonder if Debbie is acceptable to a lot of women because the clothing isn’t overly sexualised. Plus he’s never going to pass in a month of Sundays.

I’m assuming the timeline of transition is largely correct even if the story is inconsistent. So cobbling together from the article and the interview with both of them, when their daughter was on the cusp of puberty at 13, Debbie decided to transition. Stephanie asked him to wait but he refused. He went to the GP and began taking female hormones. He started baking bread and refusing to take the bins out.

He fell increasingly down an internet rabbit hole and felt he had to publicly come out. He made life very difficult at home. When their daughter was 16 and two months away from her GCSEs, Stephanie asked Debbie to leave but Debbie refused. That summer they agreed the timeline. Debbie left school in December that year as Mr Hayton and came back as Miss Hayton.

I don't know, but I'm trying to work out why a trans person who seems fine with who they are can be transphobic for saying things others don't agree with, so I wondered if DH was dismissed as "no true transwoman".

Of course no-one will be honest and state what claims they disagree with so probably not worth more than a passing think!

I think they see him as more of a quisling.

Also, what is 'genuinely trans' anyway?!

They don't think he's genuinely trans as he thinks TWAM.

Of course he's genuinely trans! He's had his cock off and it doesn't get more extreme than that.

I wonder if TRAs would say that DH is genuinely trans? I don't know what DH has said or done that convinces people they are fearful of themself as a trans person. DH seems to like themself quite a lot.

I mean shoes, don't I?

I can't get over how those shoess in the photo obviously don't fit. We know whose shoes they are.... why doesn't she have her own nice shoes?

I can't get over how those shows in the photo obviously don't fit. We know whose shoes they are.... why doesn't she have her own nice shoes?