Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

Agree with being able to enforce in schools no compelled speech, no men in female only spaces, no suggestion to children anyone can change sex.

But you can't stop a man getting a boob job wearing women's clothes and make up to school can you? Isn't that the fetish too?

what is the suggested legal outcome?

For me:

• Repeal the GRA

Those with a GRC will need a grandfather clause, which will need to be effected in parallel with the removal of the secrecy clause, and clarity that sex means birth sex, thus rendering GRCs effectively null and void.

It's high time this was out of our lives and institutions. Enough.

I don't disagree Datun.

I'm asking what is the suggested legal outcome GC feminists are seeking?

There are repeated statements that DH shouldn't be working with children. What is being proposed to legally make it possible to prevent this?

Do people want gender reassignment removed from the equality act? Is this something that is being campaigned for?

Do people want legislation around banning paraphilias in public which names agp? Again is this being campaigned for?

I see lots of pointing out the problem but I'm not sure of the legal solutions being sought.

I don't understand the claim that any changes would 'prevent' Hayton and other AGP men working in schools. Or being less favourably treated under law.

It wouldn't. It would merely require that they did not perform their fetish on children. No compelled speech, no using female single sex spaces in the same way required of all male staff, no involving children in a belief that they are women, no political influencing with children, gender neutral clothing choices (as most of the staff of both sexes will be wearing), rather than using clothes as part of expressing the fetish in school.

How is that different to the normal requirements upon ANY teacher? These are basic expectations! It would involve letting go of special privileges, and these never should have been taken in the first place, or allowed.

Fuck!! That is just doubling down on the hypocritical stance !

Does she honestly think calling women ‘ultra’ and ‘extremists’ and telling them they are not doing the cause any ‘good’ is not fucking policing?

Every time a child calls him 'Miss' he gets a sexual thrill.

This ^^

Which is enabled by people with a loud voice and reach telling society that nice and good people do this for him, because 'respectful'.

Leaving aside whether lying is a sign of respect, as pp says above, is it a choice for those children? Do they have the option of calling him anything else without consequence or pressure? Because that isn't 'respect', that makes it 'submission'. It's a powerplay, with a child, for a man to have a sexual experience. In a school, with children he has a duty of care to.

“Joanna Williams on Twitter says "For once I disagree with Janice Turner. Using preferred pronouns as a courtesy for people we agree with is to suggest pronouns are determined by politics not biology. This is exactly what transgender activists argue."”

Thanks Corgi for highlighting this.

This is what many of us have been saying here and many people saying elsewhere for a long time.

It bears repeating over and over. Maybe it will sink in. It is just one of the disconnected lines of thinking that shows the degree of falsity, intended or not, people will put up with themselves and demand others follow their lead.

This article today really seems to be only about JT saying she is not like ‘those’ women over there. Fine. But stop being a fucking hypocrite while doing it.

It was a tremendous coup for transactactivists to get that into the equality act.

The question that needs answering is this:

Is trans ideology a Trojan horse for men's paraphilias or is it something else?

If it's the former should it be a protected characteristic? Should a law protect men's public paraphilias?

One thing's for certain, it would not have been made clear to everybody that the protected characteristic of gender assignment will definitely be applied to men with a public sexual fetish that requires non-consenting participation.

I do believe there were some dissenters, who thought it could be, but they were outnumbered.

*Stating that you will use preferred pronouns for nice trans people, but not the nasty ones, is an excellent way of getting yourself into a muddle. What if the nice ones turn out to be nasty? Do they forfeit the right to choose their pronouns?

The point is no one has any right to choose their pronouns ever because you can't compell others speech. The right lies with the speaker to choose what they say.

So yes you can choose to be nice and then change your mind if they're a twat.
Or
You can choose to only ever use sex based pronouns in every situation ever.

You get to choose what you say and how you use language.
Different people will be influenced different ways, at different times but the principle is no one gets to tell you what to say. Not the person you are talking about or the people who disagree with you.

You know, I think I can. Both of them would bring a lot of light. I think other panellists would feel obliged to perform bringing the heat.

What we object to is that this man is going to work every day and involving children as a prop in his fetish. Every time a child calls him 'Miss' he gets a sexual thrill.

Does she really see nothing wrong with that?

She can choose to be part of his sexual experience if that's what she wants to do, but those children have no choice.

She is of course welcome to use whatever language she chooses.

What she cannot do is make other women agree with her, and stop them pointing out to her the many, many issues with her choice. This is essentially what she seems cross about: the lack of agreement and approval. And when she is through the article not selling this as 'this is my choice, other women have other views on this', but 'this is the right, respectful thing that non-extremist (nice) women would do'? Then yes. She can hardly be surprised at the push back.

I continue to also be surprised that after all women have been deluged with by this lobby and its representatives, including the subject of her article, she is annoyed and surprised at their daring to be angry, fed up and rejecting of nicely sucking up a bit more of it.

Ooo KJK on Question Time. With Robert Winston! Can you imagine?

Set your own rules? What?

so we can all decide what words mean based on our own individual feelings? That’s a nonsense!

the trouble is this is where Bekind gets you - either woman means adult human female or it doesnt. It can’t mean adult human female plus the TW I personally get on ok with but not the other ones over there

Is she saying other people should be courteous and use preferred pronouns?
I can't see that in the article?
She's saying that's her position.
And that she rejects all compelled speech.

I disagree with her calling DH she but respect her right to choose her own language. And reject the idea we should seek to police or control what other people choose to say. We are however free to disagree with what they say.

I'm interested in her comment on the equality act.

Would you support removing gender reassignment from the act?
I know the act is a mess but I'm not sure how I see it being clarified in a way which would allow DH or other Transwomen to lose their jobs in schools?
What legal mechanism would you propose to prevent DH working in a school?
Would agp men be fine in offices?

I'm trying to see how this would work.
Also what about all the men dressing as women who don't publicly admit their agp. Are they ok in schools?

As far as I'm concerned, Janice can address or refer to Debbie Hayton however she chooses in a private conversation. None of my business and my line in the sand. This was not a private conversation.

the fact that pupil’s at DH’s school don’t have the luxury of choice that Janice Turner had,
Yes, crucial point and I can't remember Janice raising this - has she? If she hasn't then I think that disappoints me more than today's telling-off.

It's so pissing me off.

My pronouns are not a tube of balm to soothe men's feelings!

It brings to mind Marie Antoinette playing milk maid.

Womanhood is the yoke across her back, that she's using to play at being an oppressed peasant for the morning.

I agree! I've never been particularly militant about never using pronouns ever; but did find the use of 'she' for Debbie very irritating and gratuitously unnecessary.

Apart from that - it was a good, revealing and worthwhile article.

I do thank JT for bringing a spotlight on this, actually.

Previously I'd not been that fussed about pronouns, but the whole issue blowing up has led me to think about it more carefully.

I have trouble understanding why there is a requirement to refer to Debbie as. 'she' ,when Debbie wears T-shirts declaring " Transwomen are Men' and telling everyone who will listen that he is a man? Isn't it enough to be accepting that he feels some irresistible drive to dress in 'women's clothes'?

I don't feel the personal antipathy towards Debbie that some seem to, and I do think it is helpful to the cause that he has outlined, in detail, what AGP involves.

I'm trying to imagine whether the 'she' pronouns were offered as an unanticipated gift, or whether they were requested.

And it's not just demanding the right to be allowed to be honest and not have to lie - which is not 'respect', unless by 'respect' you mean 'act of submission', because where is the mutuality in this? Why does someone being trans immediately require genuflection?

At this point it's demanding the right to not actively enable a large, pernicious agenda that starts and ends with the use and subordination of women as part of the male experience, and begins with that first little step of language that obscures the reality. It is a whole lot bigger than just 'I do not want you to force me, through social coercion, to look you in the eye and play your game'.

Although that's bad enough.

Joanna Williams on Twitter says "For once I disagree with Janice Turner. Using preferred pronouns as a courtesy for people we agree with is to suggest pronouns are determined by politics not biology. This is exactly what transgender activists argue."

I think she's right. Stating that you will use preferred pronouns for nice trans people, but not the nasty ones, is an excellent way of getting yourself into a muddle. What if the nice ones turn out to be nasty? Do they forfeit the right to choose their pronouns?

Consistency is the important thing. I respect Janice - she has been fighting this fight longer than most people - but I think she's wrong on this.

I'm very polite, fwiw. I'm very peacable. I'm really not 'extreme'. But I cannot use 'she' for a man who's apparently openly written about how he destroyed his family's life in an quest to get his rocks off.

she's arguing that people who don't feel as constrained by politeness/feel more constrained by reality are wrong/bad/ultra

Yes. It's being framed by 'courtesy' - manners, and politeness. Some might say 'tone policing'.

And for many, it's not a matter of being polite. It's a matter of accuracy and honesty.

I guess in the end Magdalen said it most clearly:

'I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar'.

See I can understand that (although we don't actually use pronouns for someone in front of us all that often) but she's arguing that people who don't feel as constrained by politeness/feel more constrained by reality are wrong/bad/ultra

& yes she seems to be missing the consequences (which seems extraordinary)