Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

I think the pronoun issue can be more easily addressed under the compelled speech/ protected beliefs legislation.

Clothing is going to be more difficult as it doesn't explicitly require anything of the other person so hard to argue for your rights (if they claim as they do it's identity not agp) and 'clothes are just clothes; there's no reason to argue for insisting they are sex coded.

What DH is angling for is a scenario where institutions can have strict sex-based dress codes, from which only castrated males are exempt.

And that would solve 90-95% of the problem, as well as mitigating the rest(?).

(DH claims that castration has taken away most of the urge that drove him to it in the first place. If so, why doesn't he go back to presenting as a man, but just lay off the testosterone? His wife's sex life might still have been wrecked, but he would no longer be a public embarrassment to her.)

Of course, that does take us back to the idea that only those truly dedicated to self-mutilation have the right gender woo. But DH says gender woo isn't a thing, and he should know....

Apparently Hayden says in his own book

“Take away the official gatekeepers…and women may well introduce informal gatekeepers of their own that may be far less welcoming of transsexuals”

Which, apart from a rather foot shooting acknowledgement that he knows women don't want these men in their spaces, would also indicate that social opprobrium is what he dreads the most.

It would appear, that despite many of these men having a humiliation fetish, the actual public humiliation of people's displeasure is something to avoid.

(also note, how he now calls himself a transsexual. Another bit of retconning sanitisation going on).

The problem is, everyone thinks that discrimination law trump safeguarding.

And everyone is pretending that a male teacher demanding children call him 'miss' is not a safeguarding issue.

When i say everyone, i include schools and government.

Its going to take the equivalent of a teacher isla bryson to bring it out into the open. Then schools and government will have to do something about it.

Whilst the EA protects men who say they have reassigned their gender it remains impossible to draft a dress code which prevents men wearing women's clothes at work.

You cannot stop a man wearing the exact same outfit a women is wearing to work, even if you have a gendered dress code, under the EA if he says he is reassigning his gender.

You could argue to treat him as a man but under what specific provision to protect women. (He's not saying he's agp it's just his identity)

And how would you legally justify gendered dress codes anyway if that's what you're suggesting? The clothes are just clothes argument would be made.

We've thrown away the social and cultural mechanisms we used to use to manage this and trying to use the legal system is going to be a mess, particularly while current legislation remains.

I've read your posts and I don't think they address the issue.

I think the only way to achieve this without hitting discrimination laws is a gender neutral uniform which applies to everyone.

This.

As usual, it has nothing to do with TQ. It has to do with unacceptable behaviour. And the lobby's rather odd reluctance to separate the two for some reason.

So logically either their argument becomes 'unacceptable behaviour is a part of TQ and cannot be controlled or resisted' - which is going to be a problem in many jobs.

Or 'TQ people should be specially exempted from unacceptable behaviour'.

Which is it, I wonder?

I suspect (but it is only a guess) if a parent were to push back, they would be welcome to remove their child from the school. I don’t know, though- it may well be that no one at the school has complained or questioned it.

It would be good to know whether given that DH says he doesn’t mind which pronouns are used for him, does he tell pupils they are free to use whichever pronouns they want, no pressure? Or does DH in the school setting, quietly and conveniently go with school policy and the sentiment stated on their website that “to actively misgender a person is an act of hostility”?

I've explained this in two separate posts now.

The thing is you can't ignore what they wear.

You can insist on the right to call them a man. You can choose to use sex based pronouns and remove that thrill.

But the thrill of wearing a bra blouse, skirt and heels is probably the biggest thrill and that is protected in the EA.

The EA prevents the social management of what was obviously understood in the past as sexual behaviour because it's now discrimination of people's gender reassignment.

You're welcome Hell and Datun.

Back to if we repeal the GRA but then there's still the PC of GR. I do think the latter would be nullified, in reality. That's because the current situation is that someone can take on the PC of GR by saying some words, with the clear implication that they're on a road to a GRC. Or maybe they've got one already.

But if there's no GRC to work towards, all you're left with is calling Mark, Kate. And referring to him as "he". And ignoring what he wears (I realise all the well made points on the broken social contact on clothes with I agree with, but let's say we simply ignore it for the sake of this argument).

Where's the sexual thrill in that? It's not there. There's no attention, no mystery does he / doesn't he have a certificate to be hung over anyone's heads.

It's rendered obsolete and dull.

Is it only up to the discretion of the school?

Can a parent not insist that their child isn't subject to a fetish?

Or anyone, in fact. It must be violating any number of child safeguarding rules.

As I said, I don't know why he's still able to work there. He subjecting everybody, including children to his sexual fetish. Completely upfront about it.

Datun His school is activist central (and from Sept it will have a new CEO who actively platforms men like Bobbi Pickard and Jan Morris). I doubt the school has any problem with DH whatsoever.

in this case we don't actually need to think about clothes, work appropriateness etc etc. He's written a book about what sexually arouses him.

I was writing more broadly. I'm certainly not proposing a Citizens Assembly about DH but around the more general concerns and mire.

Thanks again Rex. Your comment commentary has been hugely interesting.

The Equality Act basically protects transvestism at work.

Yes it does.

It's a piece of sexist legislation that should never have been included.

It was brought in on the basis that trans people exist, outside of a sexual fetish.

But then mixes up of the medical condition gender dysphoria, which the equality act thought would be people going through a medical process, and cross dressing fetishists.

But both of them require women to be props and are highly sexist.

But are you suggesting a dress code which allows women to wear dresses but not men?

I think a gender neutral dress code for all would be the only legal option. Fine if there's a uniform, but many unhappy women if there isn't and women now can't wear skirts or dresses.

Well quite.

In this particular case, there's no ambiguity at all.

As I said, I don't know why he's still able to work there. He subjecting everybody, including children to his sexual fetish. Completely upfront about it.

This is all beginning to look like a conflict for Janice, being a labour voter, writing for the times.

Maybe she'll jump ship, concluding that times readers, although giving her a platform, really don't get it.

Yes Rethinking it is a mire. I'm saying though that in this case we don't actually need to think about clothes, work appropriateness etc etc. He's written a book about what sexually arouses him. There should be a safeguarding concern flagged about this. It happens to be AGP in this case, but it would be the same in any other scenario of a teacher publishing a book about his sexual arousal.

They'd get sued to hell and back.

I’m not sure they would, if they just required someone to stick to the dress code. But anyone wanting to understand the legal implications could look at case law regarding religious symbols at work. If a cross dressing man got shirty about the dress code, I think I would threaten to introduce a “staff school uniform” that would be gender neutral and very unpopular in the staff room.

Agree Datun about the btl comments.

I also saw this which I suspect may not be too wide of the mark:

"🧵Let’s be clear, this article reveals that this was always about party political manoeuvres masquerading as a sophisticated, liberal ‘Third Way’. But it’s based upon multiple, obvs false premises…

Sex realists are not compelling anyone’s speech - they are expressing a value judgment. And so-called AGP is not a safe new identity to be courteous to according to whim, it’s a serious psychological disorder that we cannot afford to shape society and language around.

The article tellingly includes cheap digs at Sunak, when he undoubtedly has the better (if clunky) principle on sex realism.

The project was to offer Starmer and Labour a friendly ‘trans-lite’, AGP compromise, to solve his ridiculous 99.9% daftness, but it’s backfired terribly."

x.com/nosecretlessons/status/1756278920511443293?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Thank you Rex. The comments are always the litmus test for me.

And, I suspect, Janice too.